When 2 year US government bonds yield more than the 10 year US government bonds a recession is likely to appear soon. This chart shows why this is seen as such a reliable predictor.
The chart shows the 10 year yield minus the 2 year yield. So when the value falls below 0 that means the 2 year yield is higher. Each time that happened, since 1988, a recession has followed (the grey shaded areas in the chart).
Do note that there were very small inversions in 1998 and 2006 that did not result in a recession in the near term. Also note that in every case the yield curve was no longer inverted by the time a recession actually started.
The reason why this phenomenon is getting so much attention recently is another thing that is apparent when looking at this chart, the 2 and 10 year yields are getting close to equal. But you can also see we are no closer than 1994 and the USA economy held off a recession for 7 more years.
Since 1970 the average length of time from the inversion of the 10 to 2 year yield curve has been 12 months (with a low of 6 months in 1973 and a high of 17 months, before the great recession of 2008).
In addition to a possibly impending yield curve inversion it has been a long time since the last recession which makes many investors and economists nervous that one may be due.
Related: 30 Year Fixed Mortgage Rates are not correlated with the Fed Funds Rate – Bond Yields Stay Very Low, Treasury Yields Drop Even More (2010) – Looking for Dividend Stocks in the Current Extremely Low Interest Rate Environment (2011) – Stock Market Capitalization by Country from 2000 to 2016
Another thing to note about yield curves at this time is that the US Federal Reserve continues to hold an enormous amount of long term government debt (trillions of dollars) which it has never done before the credit crisis of 2008. This reduces the long term yield since if they sold those assets that would add a huge amount of supply. How this impacts the predictive value of this measure will have to be seen. Also, one way for the Fed to delay the inversion would be to sell some of those bonds and drive up long term rates.
Amazon announced they are opening major new offices in Arlington, Virginia and New York City. Each site will hold 25,000 new Amazon employees at an average salary above $150,000. Getting to that level with take many years, next year under 1,000 employees will be at each site.
I lived in Arlington for many years and own rental property there. The Amazon decision is likely to catalyze a much more rapid ascent of the technology sector in the DC area. The DC area has a strong foundation of internet technology to build upon, though many people are not aware of this. The Amazon move will likely help shift the perception of the DC area as government driven and the growth of internet technology activity in the area is likely to grow rapidly.
The 25,000 jobs (even with a greater than average salary of $150,000) isn’t the main impact of the announcement. The big news is the likelihood of Amazon’s highly visible efforts catalyzing more tech businesses (especially 5-7 years down the road when some of the Amazon people start creating their own startups). It isn’t that Amazon is moving into a barren tech landscape, there is already a strong base from which to launch a long term tech boost to the DC area economy.
The direct impact of Amazon’s employees renting and buying in and around Arlington is not going to be very strong for a couple years. Amazon plans to add 500 people to Arlington in 2019; 1,000 more in 2020 and 2,000 more in 2021. But investors already can plan for a strong future demand from Amazon and all the activity that Amazon’s growing presence will contribute to.
I am actually selling my house in Arlington (in this photo), with a very nice yard (explanation below).
The increase in housing prices in 2019 and 2020 will be primarily investor driven. In 2020, 2021 and going forward the impact of Amazon employees directly and all the extra activity spurred on will start to have an impact. Unlike the stock market where such a predicable strong investment future would drive prices up say 30-50% immediately, in real estate it is much more likely for the gains to be spread out over the long term.
If prices in housing increase in Arlington it is more likely they would increase say 10% in the first year and then an extra 3% (above what the increase would have been without Amazon’s move) each of the next 10 years. From a long term investors perspective this provides a great possibility for buying now (even after the news) and not having to pay a huge premium.
Rental housing prices are not likely to go up much immediately. And they will take longer to show up in the market, they will be much more closely tied to new job additions (from Amazon and others). So investors have to pay a higher price today (say 5-10% higher) and in the first 1 or 2 years probably see no higher rents than they would have otherwise. And even after 2021 those rents are likely to go up more slowly than prices of real estate.
The stories you most frequently hear about China in Africa are
- resource extraction (oil, metals, etc.)
- infrastructure loans from China (with Chinese labor and Chinese companies doing the work, often to aid resource extraction)
- farming exports to China
While those are happening an excellent report from McKinsey (Dance of the Lions and Dragons) provides an in depth look at a much more entrepreneurial state of affairs. While there are big government backed efforts (including those with Chinese state owned company participation) there are many small companies making entrepreneurial investments led by Chinese entrepreneurs seeing a opening to build successful companies.
Chinese firms’ decisiveness is indicative of the relationship between the comparative advantages of Chinese entrepreneurs and the opportunities in African markets. To some, the high returns earned by Chinese firms are symptomatic of a market failure: too little competition in African markets. But in sectors such as manufacturing, there are too few African firms with the capital, technology, and skills to invest successfully and too few Western firms with the risk appetite to do so in Africa. Thus the opportunities are reaped by Chinese entrepreneurs who have the skills, capital, and willingness to live in and put their money in unpredictable developing-country settings.
What makes the decisiveness of Chinese investors all the more impressive is that they are mostly using their own money. Two-thirds of the private firms we surveyed, and over half of all firms in our sample, reported that their investments were self-financed through retained earnings or savings, or funded through personal loans. Only 13 percent of investment funds came from financing schemes linked to the Chinese government, and less than 20 percent came from Chinese or African commercial bank loans
I believe investments in Africa will provide great investment returns in the next 20 years. There are many challenges but the opportunity is much greater than most people realize. The potential returns are quite high due to the lack of capital and interest being shown in African opportunities.
Factory in Nigeria (I think) that my family toured.
Likely huge companies, such as Google, Tencent, Facebook, Toyota and Alibaba will do very well. But there are many opportunities. That Africa is made up of 54 different countries creates challenges for investors and companies seeking to grow (but also creates variation and opportunities). It will be interesting to see how big the role Chinese entrepreneurs play in the next 20 years in Africa.
The report is an excellent detailed look at Chinese investment in Africa. It is a long and worthwhile read.
Related: Kiva Loans Give Entrepreneurs a Chance to Succeed – Drone Deliveries to Hospitals in Rwanda – Using Capitalism in Mali to Create Better Lives – Promoting Innovation in Sierra Leone
The latest massive breach of USA citizen’s private information by poorly run companies once again shows how we are voting for the wrong type of people. We need to start electing people that fix problems instead of watching things burn.
It is not impossible to improve if you elect people that care about making things better. If you elect people that are driven mainly by doing favors for those giving them cash you get the system we have now.
I believe in designing systems that use markets to create the best solutions to desired outcomes (this is the basic idea of real capitalism – instead of the crony capitalism we have been infected with). Europe has much more respect for citizen’s privacy that the USA does. Europe has much more effect laws on protecting citizen’s privacy. For decades the 2 political parties in the USA have taken large cash donations (and more, future cushy jobs…) to allow the current system to punish citizen’s as their private information is abused and they are expected to spend their time and resources to fix the problems created by the identity theft the lack of decent systems in the USA to stop identity theft. And the design by the 2 parties to put the cost of dealing with it on voters and the benefits (of selling private consumer information and using poor security practices to create problems that voters have to clean up) to those giving the parties cash.
We need to stop voting for such corrupt parties and such poor representatives of our interests (though they are very good representatives of those paying them cash).
So what is a simple starting point for taking the burden of dealing with the easy identity theft our political parties and companies that don’t care about the costs of their sloppy practices on society are?
- Force those approving false credit to pay. Anytime you have to fix credit given falsely in your name they must pay you. Say, $1,000 minimum.
- Force those providing false information about you to pay. If credit bureaus report false information about you that you must correct it is $50 if it is fixed within 7 days of a simple internet form being completed. If it takes 30 days the cost is $150. If they require you to provide additional information, additional costs accrue. They must provide your the original documentation on the loans.
- Give consumer automatic and free control over the use of their private information.
Obviously, credit freezes, and managing that status must be free. - Any organization that collects private financial information must have liability insurance. That insurance will automatically pay per security breach. For name + SSN ($150) + Date of birth ($20) + cell phone number ($20) + current address ($100) + credit card number ($50) + email address ($10) + mother’s maiden name ($25), etc. If you do not collect SSN, credit card number, cell phone number or current address this will not apply. I haven’t given it any thought, but there should be some level of private information that pushes you into the category of the organization that must have liability coverage (what that is can be worked out).
- The funds for those security breaches are paid to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and used to
- create better security practices for private information
- fund enforcement of those better security practices
- fund law enforcement investigations and criminal prosecution of those abusing private financial information
This idea needs to be expanded beyond my 1 hour of thinking about it, but it is sad that in 1 hour I can think of much more effective ideas than our political parties have put in place in 20 years.
The reliance on SSN as a identifier for people is something that shouldn’t have been allowed. It is one of many things that should be fixed and it should be fixed quickly.
The organization created here needs to focus on privacy of data. They need to encourage the use of encryption. They need to be given a seat at the table to counter those seeking to promote hacking (both leaving insecure software in place and creating insecurity in the software ecosystem to exploit and be exploited by criminals and other states) to benefit state sponsored spying. That debate will result in tradeoffs. Sometimes they will decide to allow our private information to be put at risk for other benefits. But they need to accept the responsibility of doing so. It would likely be sensible to charge the departments leaving open security holes and creating security holes anytime it becomes obvious that they are responsible for the harm to us. Otherwise they pretend there are not costs to the very bad security practices that our government has been encouraging (even as crazy as it sounds building backdoors into software – which is a security disaster obviously).
Other than the extremely sad state of affairs in health care in the USA (with the Republicans focusing on making it much worse) the biggest threat to our personal finances is likely the lack of security in our financial system (though to be fair there are other plausible candidates – very high debt level…).
Related: Protecting Your Privacy and Security (2015) – Making Credit Cards More Secure and Useful (2014) – Governments Shouldn’t Prevent Citizens from Having Secure Software Solutions USA Congress Further Aids Those Giving Them Cash Risks Economic Calamity Again – Security, Verification of Change – 8 Million New Potential Victims of Identity Theft (2008)
The Great Convergence by Richard Baldwin makes some interesting points about “globalization.” I actually find the long term history the most interesting aspect. It is very easy for people today to forget the recently rich “West” has not always been so dominant.
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.
Even though there are plenty of ways to improve the economic conditions for most people today is very good compared to similar people 50 years ago. There are a few, small population segments that there are arguments for being worse off, but these are a tiny percentage of the global population.
However, we humans often compare ourselves to whoever is better off than us and feel jealous. So instead of appreciating good roads, food, shelter, health care, etc. we see where things could be better (either our parents had it a bit better or these people I see on TV or in this other country, etc.). It is good to see how we could improve if we then take action to improve. To just be frustrated that others have it better doesn’t do any good, it doesn’t seem to me.
There are significant ways governments can help or hinder the economic well being of their citizens. I am a big believer in the power of capitalism to provide wealth to society. That isn’t the same as supporting the huge push to “crony capitalism” that many of the political parties throughout the world are promoting. The “capitalism” in that phrase exists for alliteration, the real meaning is the word crony.
street scene in Seoul, South Korea (photo by John Hunter)
These Are the World’s Most Innovative Economies
These type of rankings are far from accurate, what does most innovative really mean? But they do provide some insight and I think those at the top of the list do have practices worth examining. And I do believe those near the top of this list are doing a better job of providing for the economic future of their citizens than other countries. But the reality is much messier than a ranking illustrates.
With that in mind the ranking shows
- Korea
- Sweden
- Germany
- Switzerland
- Finland
- Singapore
- Japan
- Denmark
- USA
One thing that is obvious is the ranking is very biased toward already rich countries. When you look at the measures they use to rank it is easy to see this is a strong bias with their method.
China is 21st. Malaysia is 23rd and an interesting country doing very well compared to median income (I am just guessing without actually plotting data). Hong Kong is 35th, which is lower than I imagine most people would have predicted. Thailand is 44th. Brazil is 46th and even with their problems seems low. Brazil has a great deal of potential if they can take care of serious problems that their economy faces.
In a previous post I examined the GDP Growth Per Capita for Selected Countries from 1970 to 2010, Korea is the country that grew the most (not China, Japan, Singapore…).
Related: Leading Countries for Economic Freedom: Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland – Economic Consequences Flow from Failing to Follow Real Capitalist Model and Living Beyond Our Means – Easiest Countries in Which to Operate a Businesses (2011)
We have tax plans from the major USA Presidential candidates. I don’t like any of them, though I actually like Ted Cruz’s plan more than the others, but it has a huge problem. His plan doesn’t fund the government he wants, not even just as poorly as we have been doing. He would increase the debt substantially.
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.
When I lived in Malaysia I learned that the residential electricity rates were very low for the low levels of use and climbed fairly rapidly as you used a lot of electricity (say running your air conditioner a lot). I think this is a very good idea (especially for the not yet rich countries). In rich countries even most of the “poor” have high use of electricity and it isn’t a huge economic hardship to pay the costs.
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 most popular posts on the Curious Cat Investing and Economics blog in 2014 (by page views).
- Top 10 Countries for Manufacturing Production in 2010: China, USA, Japan, Germany… (posted in 2011)
- Manufacturing Output as a Percent of GDP by Country (1980 to 2008) (2010)
- Nuclear Power Generation by Country from 1985-2010 (2012)
- Government Debt as Percentage of GDP 1990-2009: USA, Japan, Germany, China… (2010)
- Stock Market Capitalization by Country from 1990 to 2010 (2012)
- Global Stock Market Capitalization from 2000 to 2012 (2013)
- The 20 Most Valuable Companies in the World – October 2015
- Manufacturing Output as Percent of GDP from 1980 to 2010 by Country (2012)
- USA Individual Earnings Levels: Top 1% $343,000, 5% $154,000, 10% $112,000, 25% $66,000 (2012)
- Manufacturing Output by Country 1999-2011: China, USA, Japan, Germany (2013)
- Chart of Largest Petroleum Consuming Countries from 1980 to 2010 (2011)
- The USA Doesn’t Understand that the 1950s and 1960s are Not a Reasonable Basis for Setting Expectations (2011)
- Oil Production by Country 1999-2009 (2011)
- Monopolies and Oligopolies do not a Free Market Make (2008)
- Investing in Peer to Peer Loans (2015)
- Cockroach Portfolio (2014)
- USA Health Care Spending 2013: $2.9 trillion $9,255 per person and 17.4% of GDP (2015) (
- Long Term View of Manufacturing Employment in the USA (2012)
- Solar Energy Capacity by Country (2015)
- Chart of Global Wind Energy Capacity by Country 2005 to 2013 (2014)
chart of output by top 10 manufacturing countries from 1980 to 2010
As with my other blogs the most popular posts show that old posts stay popular for a long time. Number of top 20 posts by year of publication:
2015: 4
2014: 2
2013: 2
2012: 5
2011: 4
2010: 2
2008: 1
Related: 20 Most Popular Posts on the Curious Cat Investing and Economics Blog in 2014 – 20 Most Popular Post on Curious Cat Science and Engineering Blog in 2014 – 10 Most Popular Posts on the Curious Cat Management Blog in 2014 – Most Popular Posts on the Curious Cat Management Comments Blog – Most Popular Posts on the Curious Cat Comments Blog
The USA economy is far from strong. The global economy seems even weaker. Inflation is not an imminent risk. Under such conditions the USA Federal Reserve adding gasoline to the economy via low interest rates makes sense.
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.