6/6/2013: Irish School of Growthology: Sunday Times 02/06/2013

This is an unedited version of my Sunday Times column from June 2, 2013


This month, welcoming the start of the silly news season, interest group after interest group has been appealing to the Irish Government to "act decisively" on dealing with the crises sweeping across their sectors. From retail services to construction industry, from early age education to public sector unions, from pensions to faming, and so on every lobbyist is loudly demanding that the Government divert its resources to the plight of his clients.

The Irish School of 'Growthology', spurred on by the 'end of austerity' noises emanating from Brussels, as well as by the promised departure of the Troika, is out in public once again. One quango after another is promoting its sector as a core driver for future jobs creation, economic activity and a wellspring of exchequer returns subject to the Government taking the correct action on growth today.

The reality is that no one involved in this policy circus - not the economists launching reports, nor the quangos backing them, and least of all the Government - has a faintest idea as to how the Government really can do anything about growth. Everyone at the launches knows this and no one admits it. So after two or three iterations of the Growthology events, the entire Irish establishment begins to believe that if only the Government threw its support behind the latest fad, the crisis will be over. Hungry for PR opportunities, Ministers spin exports growth numbers like greyhounds bets, and green-nano-bio-gen-cloud-tech working groups and centres of excellence for knowledge-food-wind-agri island spin jobs promises in tens of thousands.

The ministers love Growthology, As George Bernard Show put it ages ago "a government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul".


Since the Irish state cannot print its own money, the Cabinet can only tax one side of economy to 'invest' in the other. Which is just fine with the Growthologists, as long as the Government robs someone else to pay them.
There are three basic variants of these 'multiplier schemes' being offered to the Government for post-Troika days.

The business lobby and the unions have been busy pushing the Government to do something to 'unlock' the spending power held in people’s savings. The preferred mechanism for forcing households to part with their safety nets varies from deploying inflationary pressures to expropriating funds via levies. Unions are calling for higher taxes on someone else (usually, the so-called 'rich'). The fact that such policies can leave households exposed to adverse income shocks in the case of a job loss or unexpected illness or a rise in necessary spending, such as children education fees, is not something that our Social Partners are concerned with.

Another option, usually favoured by the official economic policy quangos, is finding rich foreigners to invest in Ireland. Which, of course, sounds much more palatable than expropriating from our own. However, inward real FDI (as opposed to retained earnings accumulating in the IFSC) into Ireland has peaked. Worse, as the data from our external trade over 2010-2012 indicates, the FDI we are bringing in is linked to services exports. The latter have much lower propensity to support new employment, and when they do hire workers, they tend to import them. The activities of these new MNCs do increase our GDP, but this growth is illusory when it comes to the real economy.

About the only new value added generated by the MNCs activities in Ireland today relates to clustering and partnering models that some - but not all - R&D intensive MNCs are engaged in.  These are in their infancy still and require serious changes in the way we do business in this country to nurture to strengths. Examples of what needs to be done here include changing the way we tax equity investments, reinvested profits and how we deal with currently protected sectors of our economy. Again, promising, but not a Big Bang idea for jump-starting the economy without taking serious pain of structural reforms first.

The last pathway for Growthological 'stimulus' is to convince the Irish Government to borrow more funds to invest in some capital programmes. This is the preferred imaginary source for ‘funding growth’ for the Unions and the Labour Party backbenchers. However, even the current Government finds this theory infeasible. The reason is that we cannot sustain an increase in borrowings over 2013-2016 horizon without triggering a cascading effect of higher interest costs on existent debt.

In a way, in contrast to the Irish Growthology movement, this week's announcement by the Minister for Finance, Michael Noonan that he is working on a multi-annual plan covering the period of 2014-2020 to commit his and future Governments to continued fiscal discipline and structural reforms was a courageous and correct thing to do. By pre-empting the spread of Growthology across the Cabinet, Minister Noonan tried to focus our attention on the longer-term game, as well as on the present reality.

Irish Government will need to take some EUR5.1 billion more out of the private sector economy in 2014 and 2015 under the current Troika programme. Thereafter, just to keep on track toward reducing Government debt/GDP ratio to below 100% by 2020, total tax take by the Government will have to increase from EUR39.8 billion in 2012 to EUR54.1 billion in 2018, with expenditure, excluding banks measures, rising from rising fromEUR65 billion to EUR69 billion over the same period. Even that requires rather rosy assumptions, including the projections for government debt financing costs being flat over the next 7 years and economic growth averaging almost 3.7% per annum on GNP side through 2018.


Absent the pipe dreams of Growthology, the only real chances for Ireland to regain sustainable growth momentum is through organic and persistent long-term reforms. Instead of ‘Government must act decisively on growth’ mantra, we need a ‘Government must help change the way we work’ model.

Start with the elephant in the room: private sector debts. Write down using debt-for-equity swaps and direct write-offs all principal residences mortgages to the maximum of 110% of the current value of the house. By my estimates, this will require banks capital of less than EUR20 billion. To reduce capital call on the banks, change the rules for capital provisioning against legacy equity assumed by the banks and push out to 2020 the requirement for Irish banks to comply with the EU baseline capital targets. Restructure and convert all remaining mortgages into fixed rate loans. If needed, assuming the EU does not come to our help in doing this, exit the euro by monetising the economy with own currency, and make euro, dollar and sterling fully accepted as legal tenders.

Thereafter, levy a significant tax on land and use raised revenue to eliminate property tax and create a flat rate tax on all income under, say, EUR200,000 per annum per family of two at a benign rate of around 15%. Equalise corporate, income and capital gains tax rates. Remove all targeted tax breaks and incentives schemes, leaving only one standard general tax allowance per each adult with half-rate applying per each child.

Reform local authorities by consolidating them into 5 regional governments with half of all land value tax revenues accruing to them. Put in place a 4-year balanced budget rule for central and local governments. Break up all semi-state companies excluding infrastructure utilities (e.g. EirGrid) and privatize or mutualize them. Put a statutory cap on market share of any company or governing body (for professional services organizations) in any sector of domestic economy not to exceed 33% to reduce regulatory capture and incentivise exporting activities. Remove all restrictions on access to professions.

In the public sector, gradually identify and develop opportunities for linking pay and promotion to productivity. Shift – where possible – public sector operations to revenue generating models with staff sharing the upside of any exports and new business creation revenues. End life-time contracts and link hiring, tenure and promotions to on-the-job performance. Identify flagship public services, such as higher education and health as spearheads for developing exports potential and, again, incentivise staff to compete globally. Benchmark all non-revenue positions to EU27 average earnings and all political and politically-appointed salaries to a scale linked directly to GNP per capita. End fully all defined benefit pensions schemes and create mandatory pensions and unemployment insurance funds based on a mixture of public and private provision models.

Open up Irish immigration regime to new entrepreneurs and key skills employees with strong incentives to naturalise successful newcomers and anchor them here. Use early immigration incentives such as social contributions tax credits in exchange for zero access to social welfare net over the first 10 years of residency (including post-naturalization).

Lastly, we need to gradually, but dramatically reform our social welfare and health care systems. We need to retain a meaningful, high quality safety net, but we also need to eliminate any possible disincentives to work and undertake business activities currently present in the system.

Aside from the changes mentioned above, we also need political reforms, changes in the way we shape and enact policies, enhancement of direct democracy tools and building robust systems of transparent governance and administration.

The main point, however, is that we need to end our addiction to the Growthlogist interest groups politics.

Box-out:


The latest data on earnings and labour costs in Irish economy was published this week. The data shows that average weekly earnings in the economy in Q1 2013 stood at EUR €696.59, basically unchanged on last year. In contrast, average hourly earnings rose from EUR 22.15 in the first quarter 2012 to EUR22.31 in 2013. In other words, Irish labour cost competitiveness remained at the same levels as in 2012 solely because over the period of 12 months through March 2013, average hours of paid work have fallen by 1%. Given that over the last 4 years weekly paid hours in the private sector have fallen by 2.2%, the latest data suggests that the average quality of employment in private sector has declined at an accelerated rate in 2012, compared to the 2009-2011 period.

26/4/2012: Sunday Times 22 April 2012: Water and Property Taxes

Here's my Sunday Times article from April 22, 2012 (unedited version, as usual):

Years ago, I quipped that Ireland doesn’t do evidence-based policies, instead we do policies-based evidence. Current whirlwind of taxation initiatives is the case in point. These include the household charge and its planned successor a property tax, plus the water charge and its twin meter installation charge. These policy instruments are poorly structured, rushed in nature, and are not based on hard economic analysis.

Water is a scarce resource, even in Ireland. On the supply side, we have abundant water resources in some locations and bottlenecks where population concentrations are the highest and where the bulk of our economic activity takes place. Reallocation of water to reflect demand/supply imbalances is a political issue, and creation of a monopolized system of water provision is not an answer to this. More effective would be to encourage local authorities to sell surplus water into a unified distribution system. Coupled with a structural reform and consolidation of the local authorities, this approach will incentivise productive economic activity in water-rich, less developed regions and provide competitive pricing of water.

Water delivery infrastructure is free of political constraints, but faces huge capital investment and operational problems. These factors are determined by treatment and transmission systems, and water quality monitoring capacity in the system. Chronic underinvestment in these areas means that Ireland’s quality of water supply is poor and water losses within the system are staggeringly high. Delivering this investment is not necessarily best served by a centralized monopoly of water provision. Only pipe infrastructure should be a monopoly asset, charging the transit fee that will reflect capital investment and maintenance needs of the system. Treatment and part of monitoring network can be retained at the local level to provide for local jobs and income.

Water charges are the best tool for demand management, a system of incentives to conserve water at the household and business level, as well as the revenue raising to sustain water infrastructure. In this context, a water charge is the best policy tool.

Currently, we pay for residential water via general taxation. If the policy objective is to improve water supply systems and create more sustainable demand, water charges should replace existent tax expenditure. In addition, higher level of collections is warranted to allow for investment uplift. Current price tag is estimated around €1.2 billion. Of these, ca €200 million come from business rates which feature a low level of compliance. Assuming half the normal rate of M&A efficiencies from consolidating the system of local water authorities, factoring in a 50% uplift on businesses rates compliance and allowing for a 25% investment buffer, annual revenues from residential water supply system should be around €900-950 million. This is the target for revenues and at least 1/3 of this target should go to reduce the overall burden of income taxation.

To deliver on the above target, we can either conceive a Byzantine, and thus open to abuse and mismanagement, system of differential allowances, rates and exemptions. Alternatively, we can take the existent volume of residential water demand and extract from this current price per litre of water. This rate should allow a 10-15% surcharge to incentivise future water conservation and to finance investment in water supply networks. Use this system for 3 to 5 years transition period. Thereafter, the market between the local authorities will set the price.

The charge, should apply to all households consuming publicly-supplied water. For poor households who cannot afford the charge, means-tested social welfare payments should be increased to cover water allowance based on the family size and characteristics. Savings generated by some households should be left in their budgets. The resulting system will be ‘equitable’, and economically and environmentally sustainable.

A complicated pricing structure of exemptions and allowances, backed by a quango and a state water monopoly, will not deliver on any the above objectives.

A different thinking is also needed when it comes to structuring a property tax. The latest instalment in the on-going debate on this matter is contained in the ESRI report published this week. In the nutshell, the ESRI report does two things. First, it proposes an annual tax on the value of the property while applying exemptions for those with incomes below specific thresholds. Second, the ESRI report attacks the idea of a site value tax as being infeasible.

Both points lead to an economically worst-case outcome of a property tax that falls most heavily on younger highly indebted families, thus replicating the distortionary effects of the already highly progressive income tax.

An economically effective system of property or site-value taxes should be universal, covering all types of property and land, regardless of ability to pay. Why? Because a property or a site value tax offers the means for capturing the benefits of public amenities and infrastructure that accrue to private owners. These benefits accrue regardless of the households’ ability to pay. Low-income household facing an undue hardship in paying the rates can be allowed to roll up their tax liability until the time when the property is sold.

My own recent research clearly shows that a site value tax imposed on all types of land, including agricultural and public land, represents a more economically efficient and transparent means for capturing private gains from public investments. It is also the least economically distortionary compared to all other forms of property taxation. This is so because a land value tax increases incentives for most efficient use of land and decreases incentives to hoard land for speculative purposes. A traditional property tax, in line with that proposed by the ESRI, does the opposite.

With a deferral of tax liability for those unable to pay, a land value tax will bring into the tax net those who hold significant land banks and/or own large parcel properties, but who are not investing in these lands and are not using them efficiently. The system will allow older households to retain their homes, but will charge fair fees on the property value that has nothing to do with these households own efforts when the gains are realized either at sale or in the process of inheritance.

The ESRI argument against implementing a site value tax is that the lack of data and a small number of land transactions in the economy prevent proper valuation. This argument is an excuse to arrive at the desired conclusion of infeasibility of the site value tax. Ireland is starting property valuation system virtually from scratch. Thus, unlike other countries, we have the luxury of doing it right from the start. Compiling a database for land valuations is easier than for property valuations precisely because sites have much less heterogeneity than the properties that occupy these sites. In simple terms, value of property is determined by the value of buildings located on it, plus the value of the site. The former is much harder to value than the latter. The value of a specific site can be backed easily out of an average or representative value of the properties located within the vicinity of the site, plus by referencing directly specific attributes of the site.

As with the water charges, the property tax system must be designed not from the premise that the Government needs a quick hit-and-run revenue fix, but from the premise that we need a new approach to taxation. Such an approach should aim to reduce the burden of taxation that penalises skills, work effort, entrepreneurship and discourages households from investing in their own human capital and properties. Instead, the burden of taxation should be shifted on paying for specific benefits received and on privately accruing gains from public investments and amenities. In this context – both water charges and a property or a site value tax represent a step in the right direction. But to be effective, these policies must be structured right.

Charts:

Box-out:

Just when you thought the taxpayers can breath easier when it comes to the banks, the latest data from the Irish, Spanish and Italian authorities shows that the banks of the European ‘periphery’ have dramatically ramped up their holdings of their countries’ Government bonds. In 3 months through February 2012, Irish banks increased their holdings of Government bonds by 21%, Spanish – by 26%, Italian – by 31%. Back in late 2008 I warned that the banking crisis will go from the stage where sovereign debt increases will be required to sustain zombified banking systems, to the stage when the banks will be used as tools for financing over-indebted sovereigns, to the final stage when the weak nations’ sovereign debt will become fully concentrated within the banking systems they have nationalized. Sadly, this prediction is now becoming a reality. As GIPS’ banks increased their risk exposures to the Governments that underwrite them, German and French banks have been aggressively deleveraging out of the riskiest sovereign bonds. In Q1 2012, Portugal ranked as the second most risky Sovereign debtor in the world in CMA Global Sovereign Credit Risk Report, Ireland ranked seventh and Spain ranked tenth, with Greece de-listed from the ratings due to its recent default. This concentration of risk on already sick balancesheets of the largely insolvent banks is a problem that can reignite the Eurozone banking crisis.

14/09/2011: More soft slop from Irish stuff-brokers

You gotta hand it to the Irish stuff-brokers community. They do routinely produce pearls of wisdom that we, the mere mortals can only aspire to. Here's one latest installment from one morning note issued today:

"If Ireland can meet its deficit cutting/growth targets over the next 2 years, then investor demand for Irish bonds should remain firm".

Let's start peeling this profoundly rhetorical onion:

1. The problem with Irish bonds is that there is NO demand for them. This is why we can't sell them and this is why we are reduced to borrowing from EFSF/EFSM/IMF/Bilateral Begging Bowl. So - the law of physics lesson for stuff brokers - that which doesn't exist cannot "remain firm".
2. If we can sustain our "deficit cutting / growth targets" over the next 2 years (i.e., given I see on my calendar "September 14, 2011") we will be in mid-September 2013 - at which point, per IMF/DofF/ESRI and other folks, usually not renown for their pessimistic assessments of our 'targets', Ireland will be at the peak of our substantial sovereign debt pile. If our stuff-brokers think that is a scenario consistent with "firm" investor demand for bonds, I wonder if the FR should suggest they attend some basic courses in finance.
3. What the hell does construction "deficit cutting / growth targets" mean? Usually, "/" implies "or". At the very least - "and / or", though that construction has own logical sign "v" as in "A ∨ B is true if A or B (or both) are true" of course, "A ⊕ B is true when either A or B, but not both, are true, which can also be written as A ⊻ B". So suppose our stuff-brokers think that delivering on our "deficit cutting" or "growth targets" (but not both) will assure "firm demand" for our bonds. We can, therefore, have NTMA going into the market telling the potential investors: "Give Ireland a chance. We have budgetary consolidation (economic growth), but no economic growth (deficits and debt sustainability)". Again, such a proposition suggests that more basic finance & economics courses are in order.

I am not being pedantic, folks. The problem is that this rhetorical exhortation can easily serve as an example of what passes for policy thinking in Ireland's more august quarters (DofF, Government, Dail, etc). It is an exact formula of what the Government / ESRI / IBEC etc have been putting forward as our policy to resolve the crisis. And yet... yet it makes absolutely no sense.

Economics 25/9/10: Accounting for our exports

Quarterly national Accounts offer a rich set of data. Listening to all the talk about turnarounds and Government policies, I wondered -

• We know that Irish Government has little to do with our exports, which are largely determined by demand outside Ireland over which our leaders have no control;
• Exports have been performing strongly over the recession
• Exports, net of imports enter both GDP and GNP figures

So a natural question from my point of view was: "Absent net exports, how badly was our economy hit by the Great Recession?"

Here are the charts, taking our GDP and GNP (seasonally adjusted, expressed in current market prices) and subtracting net exports (exports less imports).
And same in terms of year on year growth rates:
Now, let's put together our growth rates for GDP and GNP ex-net Exports and standard GDP and GNP growth rates (gross of net exports, expressed as before in current market prices, with seasonal adjustments):
To me, this paints a pretty clear picture. Given that the Government has provided virtually no supports for our exporters, the gap between each solid line and each dashed line shows the true extent of net exports contribution to growth in GDP and GNP. And this gap also shows that the economy more directly controlled by the Government has been tanking at a much steeper rate than the economy which includes our exporting firms.

Let's put a cumulative figure to this same picture:
So in those parts of Irish economy where our Leaders had a say (red) we have suffered a decline in domestic income of cumulative 34.35% since 2007. In economy which includes the part which our Leaders have very little control over, the decline was 23.7%. One wonders if there is any truth whatsoever to the leadership claims on economic policy front we've been hearing in recent days?..

Economics 07/06/2010: My points from CPA conference

The following is a quick transcript of the main points of my speech at CPA Ireland annual conference last Friday, with some of additional points in brackets.

Friday, June 4, 2010

Ireland is ten quarters into twin crises of credit contraction and house price declines which [can be expected] last for 33 quarters unless radical policy changes are made according to Dr Constantin Gurdgiev. Dr Gurdgiev was speaking at the annual national conference of the Institute of Certified Public Accountants (CPA) in Carton House, Maynooth, today.

Dismissing optimistic reports of an imminent recovery Dr Gurdgiev said: “Since May 2009, we’ve been “turning corners” to a recovery more often than Michael Schumacher on a World Grand Prix circuit.”

According to Dr Gurdgiev, Ireland’s combined Government and economy-wide debt is the worst of any of the other so-called PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain) states and the other three EU member states which he groups with them in terms of economic difficulties – Belgium, Austria and the Netherlands (BAN).

“The structure of our fiscal spending is working against us”, Dr Gurdgiev told the conference. “Fiscally we have excessive structural deficits of 50-60% of the total deficit and, courtesy of the banks we are now accumulating off balance sheet structural deficits. Our deficits are the worst in BAN-PIIGS group.”

Ireland’s asset bubble implosion is also set to continue for some time. “Asset bubble crashes last longer than our policies anticipate”, he said. “The OECD average is 10 quarters of credit busts for 18% average contraction and 19 quarters of house price falls for a 29% average price decline. Ireland’s bubble of a 60% decline in credit supply implies 33 quarters of credit contraction and our 50% house price fall implies 33 quarters of price declines. We are currently roughly 10 quarters into these twin crises.”

Compounding these crises is the fact that Ireland has the least competitive economy in the BANPIIGS group in terms of relative unit labour costs. “We haven’t been competitive since at least the mid-1990s”, Dr Gurdgiev contended. “While the latest data from the Irish Central Bank provides some grounds for optimism on the competitiveness front, regaining our overall competitiveness compared to other small open economies around the world will require more hard choices on public sector reforms and restructuring of our public utilities and semi-state service providers.” [You can see more on these points here]

On the other hand, Ireland does have a healthy exporting sector dominated by multinational companies. “But it is struggling against uncompetitive capital, public services and utilities markets, has no credit support and is suffering from capital flight and assets downgrades. Our exporting sector alone cannot carry this economy out of the hole. We are in for a structural recession; unemployment will remain high and employment will continue to fall.” [Notice, I am stressing the word ‘alone’ – it is naïve to believe that we can move out of the crisis on the back of exports. In the longer run, exporting activities will have to dominate the overall economic structure, but we are very far away from this being a reality. More importantly, our exports are being held back – at the indigenous firms’ level – by uncompetitive domestic economic structures, with some of the most pressured areas relating to semi-state companies operations].

Looking at the international picture he claimed there will be decreased pool of foreign direct investment and portfolio investment for Ireland to compete for and there will also be a decreased appetite among investors globally for an ‘Irish story’; “Firm fundamentals will matter in future. In addition, competition for foreign direct investment and portfolio investment amongst the smaller EU states will heat up and as investment diversification becomes more important the flight of capital from Ireland will be significant.”

[There are several things going on here. First on inward FDI – it is clear that Ireland will have to be re-packaged for the future efforts by IDA and EI and in general as a location for inward FDI.

Tax advantage on the corporate side will have to be matched by tax advantages on labour side, especially on skills and entrepreneurship, creativity and knowledge. This means that just as we did with the corporate tax rates, we will have to move to lower tax on premium that skills and other forms of human capital earn in the market place. And this means the need for dramatically re-thinking the system of taxation of labour and the system of taxation in general.

In addition, Ireland will need to get more serious about importing not just raw corporate FDI, but also much higher risk and less anchored entrepreneurial investment. We need to actively pursue young, aggressive, promising start ups and even potential start ups. This too requires re-balancing tax rates, amongst other things, away from taxing labour returns and in favour of taxing immobile and less productive forms of capital. Land is clearly a good target for shifting tax burden.

Ireland will have to re-market itself. We need to put to rest the tourist brochure approach to presenting ourselves and start putting in place real and meaningful changes to our immigration regime, naturalization regime, visa agreements with the neighboring countries. We also need to start thinking about the problems of services provided by the public sector, our cities, to citizens and residents. These services will have to be world class, competitive, easily responsive to demand changes, efficient, individualisable and, frankly speaking, dramatically different from the ‘cattle-em-onto-a-bus’ type of service we supply currently. If Ireland were to become competitive as a location for younger, dynamic, globally mobile highly skilled workers and entrepreneurs of the future (home-grown and foreign alike), the idea of having people on trolleys in dirty hospital halls will have to be buried, fast. The idea of expecting public transport passengers stand in freezing rain for hours waiting for a bus that operates to the bus driver-own schedule has to be binned asap.]

Dr Gurdgiev told the CPA Annual Conference that he did see some opportunities for Ireland’s exporters in the near term, however, particularly among those countries experiencing a relatively high speed recovery - primarily in rapidly developing emerging markets in parts of Asia and to a lesser extent Latin America.

“There is a substantial continued demand for investment in major public infrastructure in these countries [as well as in areas of domestic private demand]”, he said. “These regions are likely candidates for products and services from Ireland, but Irish firms need a differentiator in entering these markets. They have to attract and deploy top talent and deliver meaningful gains to local and foreign clients investing in these regions, while offering the legal and counterparty security of being domiciled in Ireland. The most likely pathway to these markets is by partnering in broader joint ventures with local providers in the countries themselves.” [This too requires a categorical change in indigenous enterprises. The Celtic Tiger ways of hiring ‘bright young foreigners’ for lower grade positions and retaining often unskilled, inexperienced senior staff with legacy tenure will have to go. The glass ceiling for younger and more ambitious and career driven, skilled foreign and domestic younger people will have to be broken.]

Growing knowledge economy in Ireland is the long term solution to Ireland’s economic problems, Dr Gurdgiev argued. “We have no choice but to develop our higher value added, traded services sectors. This is the real ‘knowledge’ economy.

[And I have gone to pains to explain that the ‘knowledge economy’ the policymakers have been talking about is just a small subset of the real knowledge economy. What differentiates my view of the knowledge economy from that of official policy-driven one is that to me knowledge economy reaches across various sectors of services that are largely neglected by our politicians and civil servants. Advertising and new media, e-games, health services, legal services, financial services, design and technology/creativity integration – these are some of the examples of real traded and high value added services that we should be developing here.]

But our prospects are not guaranteed here. The knowledge economy is human capital intensive and our taxation system creates no incentives to invest in human capital. We need to become more human capital focused.

“This requires a maximum flat rate income tax of 20%; a shift of the tax base to property; closing the welfare trap; and reducing the fiscal burden”. [I specifically pointed to the fact that we have a good policy on the books – the Land Value Tax – but that virtually no work is being done today to get this tax implemented in the next Budget. I also clearly stated that this should be a revenue-neutral shift in tax burden, not a new tax grab by the Exchequer. For links to background papers on SVT/LVT see here. On flat tax - back in 2006 I wrote a series of 3 articles in Business & Finance magazine on the issue of Ireland adopting flat income tax. I should dig them up and post them on my long run site...]

“We used to have a more productive and balanced economy”, Dr Gurdgiev concluded. “We’ve lost it to hype and construction, property, credit and fiscal bubbles. We need a productive knowledge based services economy next.”

Economics 17/05/2010: Jose Maria Aznar's proposals that ireland should adopt

When Spain beats you in a race of setting out pro-market reforms, can you still claim you are open for business? Well, that's a conundrum Ireland is likely to face. For 'all talk, no action' Messrs Cowen & Lenihan, here's a proposal from Spain's José Marià Aznar - a rather sensible list of reforms Spain needs to adopt in the next few years, published in FT:

1. Large-scale labour reform to transform collective bargaining (equivalent to killing off our own Social Partnership to which Messrs Cowen & Lenihan seem to be totally wedded), deregulate labour recruitment services (which is now out of reach for Ireland since Messrs Cowen & Lenihan subscribed to the Croke Park deal) and, lower taxes on employment (which is, of course, an impossibility for Ireland as we continue destroying our domestic and exporting capacity by saddling workers with the bills for banks and public sector rescues) and encourage the unemployed into work (a possible by-product of the next wave of public spending cuts, but not a concerted effort that pairs both negative and positive incentives and access to training and entrepreneurship resources for the unemployed);
2. a new energy policy to avoid the shutdown of nuclear plants, deregulate markets and cut subsidies on inefficient renewable energy sources (which, of course, would run counter to our Government's insistence on preserving ESB's market power and building windmills to escape modernity. Do note that our refusal to properly deregulate energy distribution rests on the Government continued protection of the ESB trade unions' interests in maintaining their ownership of the national grid);
   
3. a bank shake-up, including authorising the investment of private capital in savings banks (yeah, right, as if we really have a chance of reforming our banks with Nama assuring they will remain zombie lenders for a good part of the next 10 years);
   
4. sweeping reforms to reduce the size of regional administrations and create a viable and efficient state (again, we have no reform agenda on local authorities, and no reform agenda on creating any meaningful efficiency gains in the public services);
   
5. changes to the state pension system to guarantee its mid-term and long-term sustainability (in Ireland's case, this is equivalent to the earlier Government promise to... create a new compulsory quasi-tax on our incomes that would underpin state-controlled, privately supplied pension system, while maintaining the status quo of inefficient, and politically manipulated social security);
   
6. deregulation to increase competition, including reforms to the welfare state and further privatisation of public companies (Messr Cowen & Lenihan have not got this far, and are unlikely to get there in the future. Instead of stimulating private growth by opening state-controlled markets to competition and breaking up Government near-monopolies, our Government is keen on actually providing more cash for semi-states to engage in 'investment' which normally - DAA, anyone, or ESB - yields no real returns to the economy, but always acts to increase market power of these semi-states);
   
7. tax reform to foster competitiveness (again, not a peep on this one from Messrs Cowen & Lenihan. Instead of tax reforms, we have Commission on Taxation report and a promise of pushing tax rates even higher in the next couple of years. Take a wild guess which 'programme' will this Government pursue).
   

That's right, folks. Our ex-politicians now line up to take state jobs at the insolvent banks. Spain's ex-leaders are trying to design new policies. Any idea who's got a better shot at a recovery?

Economics 09/12/2009: Budget 2010 - first shot at numbers

I will be blogging on the Budget 2010 over the next few days, but here is the main point:

The Budget did not deliver a significant adjustment to our structural deficit.

1. Claimed adjustments to the deficit totaling €3,090 million on current expenditure side and €961 million on capital side. These are gross figures which imply that we can expect net adjustments of ca €2,600 and €800 million each to the total deficit reduction of no more than €3,400.
2. Per table below, the Exchequer deficit will likely stand at €21,400 million in 2010 and not anywhere near the projected deficit of €17,760 million.
3. Stabilization of deficit is not happening on a significant downside, but in a marginal fashion, which is simply not good enough.

The main conclusion here is that the Budget has not gone far enough in reducing the structural deficit. There is another €10-12 billion worth of cuts looming for 2011-2012. It would be dangerous to assume that this can be corrected for through re-jigging tax system in 2011 as Minister Lenihan appears to imply.

At this junction, I simply cannot see how the Budget delivered anything more than a breathing period for Ireland before we resume our slide toward Greece. 12.4% deficit before we factor in demand for capital from Irish banks is just not enough. Full stop.

The Minister is now talking about €3 billion cut in 2011, then €5 billion cut in 2012-2013. This implies that from next year's standing position we are looking at a deficit of well over €9-13 billion in 2014. Assuming economy grows at a robust 2.5% every year from 2011 through 2014, this would imply a deficit of 4.9-7% of GDP - way long of the SGP-required 3%. If economy grows at even briskier pace of 3% per annum over the same period, the resultant deficit will be around 4.8-6.9%. Again, not much of a fit for our promises to the EU...

Economics 01/12/2009: A real breakthrough of Mr Cowen

So per latest reports, the nation is saved. Facing a systemic deficit of €14bn per annum, the leaders of the Social Partnership have been contemplating a dramatic reduction in the cost of Government business. The dramatic news from the Government buildings, suggested a pay cut for public sector workers of 5% gross, or less than 3% net, delivering something to the tune of €836mln in gross savings (as claimed by the unions). Which, of course, will be clawed back to less than €600mln through automatic stabilizers (taxes on earnings paid through taxes and so on - per reported estimates by the DofF). For a moment, it all looked like our Taoiseach Brian Cowen reigned over the business-as-usual at the Partnership Table.

Credit for derailing this 'savings' deal goes to the public outcry, the media, a handful of backbenchers, the Department of Finance and also to Brian Lenihan - all of whom have managed to restore our policy back to senses. The numbers bandied around by the unions' heads were simply not adding up.

For a moment - it all looked like:
As one fellow economist described the 'New Deal' to me: “a Dora the Explorer bandaid on a shark bite”. Optimist he is – more like a prehistoric shark bite, judging by its gaping size.

Now recall, Brian Lenihan has promised three things to the nation and the EU:

1. cut €4bn in deficit this year and the same next;
2. no new taxes (except for carbon tax and, may be, higher taxes on the so-called 'rich');
3. cut €1.3bn in public sector spending
   

As long as the talks with the Partners are dragging on, this is becoming an impossible trinity of policy objectives. Will Joseph Brodsky's ending for his Elegy serve as a perfect descriptor of the Government's real legacy in the history of Ireland?

... And it says on the plinth
'commander in chief'. But it reads 'in grief', or 'in brief'
or 'in going under'.

Oh, and one last thingy - if you think that €600mln in 'savings' ever had a chance of materialising, think of public sector workers taking a 14-day holiday who will have an option to do agency work to replace their own jobs... earning a nice tidy premium...

Economics 18/09/2009: Idiot's guide to the Galaxy

One of my favorite books in the Universe, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy has been surpassed, if only momentarily, by a publisher in Ireland producing this superb Idiots' Guide to Science and Economics. Behold, the front page of today's Indo:
Of course, Mary Coughlan's theory of Relativised Evolution or Evolutionised Relativity and the absolutely unfortunate nature of the venue at which she managed to live up to her well-deserved name 'Calamity Coughlan' are straight out of the chapter 'National Embarrassment Exemplified'. It is a serious public blemish on an otherwise worthy event of IDA launching a serious campaign to attract more FDI into Ireland that I wrote about before (here). No need to detail much here, Indo's article speaks volumes, one can wonder now as to what evolutionary process can lead to the emergence of the species so ignorant of basic knowledge as Mrs Coughlan. One note worth making - the fiasco perfectly exemplifies Kevin Meyers' excellent argument in the same paper today (I might not agree with it myself, but Mrs Coughlan has made his case iron-clad).

But Brian Lenihan's lack of grasp of simple realities of public finances and economics is as breathtaking as Mrs Coughlan's lack of basic erudition. After weeks of being fed drivel of FF backbenchers' and hacks' version of economic ("Nama bonds are not debt", "We will get cheap money from ECB", "ECB supports us" etc), it seems our own Finance Minister got convinced that there is such a thing as a Free Lunch. Per Indo's article here, Lenihan "gave his firmest pledge yet that there would be no tax hikes in the December Budget. And Mr Lenihan challenged anyone who doubted him to "watch my lips"... Mr Lenihan said he was committed to introducing a carbon tax... But he gave his clearest indication yet that the Government would not bring in a property or water tax this year. "I am not aware of any other (new tax hikes)," he said.

Ok, three Indo reporters (including senior ones) failed to actually query the details of this statement the Minister made. But the very fact that Lenihan actually said what he did is a testament to the fact that this Government has no real financial brains in the Cabinet at the time of fiscal and financial crises. None at all.

Per statement itself, Minister Lenihan obviously does not consider introduction of the Carbon tax to be a new tax. Presumably, he lived so long outside the real world, in the world of chauffeur driven Mercs and vast taxpayer-paid perks that he might be under the impression that Carbon tax already exists, so 'introducing' it will not constitute an imposition of a new charge on taxpayers.

The Minister also indicated that he has seen no other tax proposals (other than the Carbon Tax and Property Tax). Has he read his own Commission for Taxation voluminous report? Or has it escaped his field of view as the Lisbon Treaty volume had escaped Brian Cowen's view earlier?

Finally, the Minister has to be living in the surreal world where a €20bn-plus shortfall between tax receipts and liabilities can be covered by something other than taxes. Indo's journos refer to the possibility of €4bn savings on the expenditure side as the means for avoiding new taxes. Have they done a simple sum ever before? Has Minister Lenihan done a simple sum ever before?

Even if the Government does deliver on €4bn in savings, and even if part-year measures announced in April 2009 budget continue through the full year 2010, the entire savings will not be able to cover a quarter of the fiscal spending gap. If the Government commits to fully ending all capital expenditure in 2010 and if the economy grows by 5% in 2010, the expected fiscal gap will still be in excess of €8bn in 2010.

This money will have to be borrowed in the international markets. The roll-over of a vast sea of short-term debt issued in 2008-2009 will have to happen. Is Minister Lenihan really buying the idea that these state liabilities - some €30bn worth already accumulated, plus Nama's €54bn expected plus the ones awaiting NTMA's printing press on the back of long term unemployment increases into foreseeable future can be 'deflated' away at the current rates of spending and taxation without raising new taxes?

Well, only in the world where Einstein authored On the Origin of Species, perhaps?

Economics 14/08/2009: Turning point, but not for you and me...

NCB's Brian Devine issued a new update on Irish economy. Clean and tight as ever, and a worthy read. It makes the case for upgrading Irish GDP growth, but unlike a host of the note stamped out by Davy's boys on a weekly basis, NCB's note is backed up by a bit more real analytical beef.

"Irish data (PMIs, Live Register, industrial production, retail sales, exports etc..) have stabilized and in some instances risen from the lows. Consequently, the NCB economic activity index which had been indicating that activity was contracting at a seasonally adjusted annualized pace of 12% in February is now signalling that the economy was contracting at an annualized pace of 6% in May. Our more timely, PMI based, growth indicator is also well off its lows and continued rising in June and July (Chart 2)."
So far just fine. There is no claim, of course, that Ireland is growing again (i.e that we've bottomed out).

"When the Irish data is combined with better than expected data from the US and the Euro area it causes us to upgrade our annual 2009 and 2010 forecasts to -7.6% (previously -8.1%) and -2.0% respectively (previously -3.1%). While we are upgrading our GDP figures we do not see the trajectory of the recovery being any different than previously – the bottom in the economy will be formed in H12010, with sustainable growth not expected until H2 2010. It is possible that we get positive GDP on a q/q basis before Q3 2010 given the volatility in Irish GDP and GNP (Chart 3) but we do not see there being sustainable growth until H2 2010 (Chart4)."
This is a little optimistic from my point of view, but not as widely off the mark as other brokers. I still do not see domestic growth posting any improvements on earlier forecasts.

On GDP side, there is lots of volatility, as Brian's note states, and the large share of GDP volatility is strategic tax optimization decisions made by the MNCs. Thus, should Intel/Dell/Pfizer and so on decide back in their US HQ that now is the time to book more profits outside the USA, Irish GDP might rise. Otherwise, it might fall. Who knows... But really, who cares.

Our economic problems in this country are not with the MNCs-component of the economy - they are with

• the fiscal wreck left behind by the Government overspending;
• the labour markets that are absolutely out of touch with productivity - a legacy of our Trade Unions and Professions;
• deteriorating quality of our workforce, courtesy of education system that is more suitable for a Faulty Towers sketch than for a 21st Century economy; and
• uncompetitive domestic markets, supported by the Social Partnership.
  

Do any of these things have a chance of seeing an improvement should Pfizer decide to produce more Viagra here?

Will Dell shipping more PCs out of this country really change the fact that our 'flagship plcs' are like drug junkies depend on state contracts and acquisitions of competitors at the top of market valuations (preferred mode for growth as opposed to organic expansions throughout the 2000s)?

Will GSK opening a new facility for 200 scientist (of whom 100 come from outside Ireland, and GSK would love to get the other 100 to come from outside Ireland too, but, alas, it can't, for it promised the 'knowledge'-driven Ireland Inc that it will hire home-grown workers too) change the fact that our clientilist system is about to saddle the entire country with onerous debts of the few developers?

The answer to all of these is 'No'. It won't.

"The cyclical downturn is always going to end but growth does not necessarily imply an economy without problems. We are still in the camp that believes the recovery process will be long and gradual with unemployment, fiscal consolidation and the oversupply of property continuing to weigh on domestic demand. We see the main driver of the exit from the cyclical downturn being the contribution from net exports (expanding global demand combined with weak demand for imports)," says NCB note.

That is a polite way of saying that under the current policies and in the current economic development environment within the country, there is no chance Irish economy can pull itself out of this recession, especially out of its structural component.

A much better, more realistic analysis from NCB, as compared to used car sales lot than the one from the Dawson Office...

Wake up calls for Irish Government

My new article in Business&Finance magazine:

Last week two international reports provided an interesting analysis of Irish policies to date and highlighted some scepticism amongst the international analysts as to the ability of our Government to lead the necessary reforms.

First, caught up in the media feeding frenzy, the IMF Article IV Consultation Paper has raised some serious questions about NAMA. Second, much unnoticed by Irish media, the EU Commission report on public finances in the Euro area have provided an in-depth look at Irish fiscal position relative to our peers.

Let us start with the IMF’s analysis, focusing on the major area of the Fund’s oncerns that received little cover in the media. Our policymakers were quick to present the IMF statement that NAMA can be a break-even proposition for the taxpayers as a major endorsement of the Government plan.

Here is what the IMF report actually did say on the topic: “If well managed, the distressed assets acquired by NAMA could, over time, produce a recovery value to compensate for the initial fiscal outlays.” In other words, the IMF is benchmarking NAMA ‘success’ solely against a possibility for earning zero return on initial public investment. The IMF is simply unconcerned here with the associated costs, such as the cost of bonds financing, NAMA management and the cost of post-NAMA recapitalization of the banks. Yet, these costs are non-trivial from the point of view of expected taxpayers’ losses due to NAMA.

Using the balance sheet model for NAMA developed by Professor Brian Lucey and myself, table below provides estimated discount rates that would achieve break-even for the taxpayers on total costs of creating and operating our bad loans bank.
* All in billion 2009 Euro, assumed inflation: 3% pa, 15-year horizon
** ca 33% of the total value of bonds issued, plus the face value of loans purchased into NAMA
*** Ex-operating cost of €20mln pa (rising at 2% pa from 2010)

Even under optimistic scenarios of 10% impairment on loans, and assuming current cost of financing Irish bonds of 5.9% (consistent with last week’s syndicated bond issue) for 2009-2014, and moderate bond finance costs for 2010-2024, the discount on assets purchased by NAMA required to achieve zero loss on NAMA-associated public outlays ranges between 27% and 50%. Higher impairment charges (12-15%) and/or financing costs raise the required break-even discount above 60%.

In other words, there is no reasonably probable scenario whereby NAMA will end up breaking even on total taxpayers outlays in real terms. Perhaps this is precisely the reason as to why the Government has to date produced not a single estimate for expected costs and returns under NAMA, despite making numerous unfounded claims that it will not result in significant taxpayers losses.

In fact, the IMF report was rather clear in its critical assessment of the Irish authorities lack of proper cost-benefit analysis of this undertaking. “The authorities did not formally produce any estimate for aggregate bank losses. …Staff noted that losses are likely to extend beyond the property-development sector as the economy weakens and the design of NAMA should incorporate that possibility.”

Furthermore, “the debt to be incurred to support the financial sector remains uncertain,” says the IMF. “If the losses suffered by banks are about 20 percent of GDP, as estimated by staff, then bank recapitalization needs could be around 12-15 percent of GDP.” These numbers correspond to the two most extreme scenarios presented above. But the IMF Report also states that in such an eventuality “assets would be acquired against this debt...” Injecting €21-25bn in public funds would do the shareholders in Irish banks will be a de facto nationalization – a scenario consistent with IMF staff estimates, yet denied by the Government.

One day before the IMF report, the 300-pages strong EU Commission paper, titled Public Finances in the EMU, 2009 put forward the picture of Irish Exchequer presiding over the worst performing (fiscally) economy in the entire EU.

The diplomatic Commission said in its report that the scale of the downturn was unexpected by the Irish authorities, “with the end-2007 update of the [Government] stability programme expecting real GDP growth of +3% in 2008, while the Commission services’ interim …forecast estimated growth at -2% in 2008”. Irish “deficit was not considered temporary”, suggesting that the EU Commission disagrees with the Government view that most of our troubles are cyclical.

As per credibility of our Exchequer plans to bring the deficits under control by 2013, Commission said that “the January 2009 addendum to the [Government] stability programme targeted a deficit …below 3% of GDP in 2013, based on yet to be specified consolidation measures. In view of the above, the Commission concluded that the deficit criterion in the Treaty was not fulfilled.” In other words, Brussels does not believe that our plans to reduce the deficit in line with the EU rules by 2013 are credible and, therefore, we are now in a full breach of the EU Treaties.

Just to make it more clear the Commission provides a graphic illustration as to how far off we really are in delivering on the 2013 targets. Like IMF in its report last week, the Commission data shows that whilst the Government has proposed a ca 2.75% of GDP contraction in its deficit in 2009-2010, the required rate of reductions should be more than 3 times greater – at ca 8.5% of GDP.

Using the change in the current level of the structural deficit required to make sure that the discounted value of future structural balances covers the current level of debt as the indicator for long-term sustainability of current Government policies, the Commission puts Ireland in the highest category of fiscal instability risk – one of only two Euro-zone countries (alongside Spain) in the group. At the same time, we came out as the most impaired country in the Euro area in overall assessment of our fiscal position.

The IMF and EU Commission papers do agree on another point. Both state that the start of the fiscal crisis we experience today predates the current crisis by at least 4 years. At the same time, clear downward trend in our fiscal stability was visible, according to the EU Commission back in 2003.

There are some serious discrepancies between the Commission and the Government assessments of the ongoing budgetary consolidation process. According to the Commission spring 2009 forecast, “the deficit is projected to widen further to 12% of GDP in 2009, the highest in the euro area.” The deficit target set out by the Government in April 2009 is 10.75% (up from 6.5% in budgeted for in October 2008). “The projected deterioration of the deficit would take place despite successive consolidation efforts since mid-2008, …with an estimated overall net deficit reducing effect of around 4% of GDP in 2009.” Thus, the EU does not buy into the Department of Finance estimate that the total consolidation to date yields 5% of GDP reduction in the deficit, as table below illustrates.

And in contrast with the Government’s rosy projections of 9% deficit for 2010, the Commission projects the deficit to widen to 15.6% of GDP on a no-policy-change basis. “The difference to the authorities’ target …is mainly due to different projections for the 2009 budgetary outcome and ...the non-inclusion of the indications for the budgetary measures for 2010 presented in the April supplementary budget.” Once again the Commission appears to be sceptical about the willingness of this Government to actually follow through with the targets set out in April.
Thus, in major reports published in one week, two international bodies gave a rather forceful negative assessment of the current Government plans for dealing with the banking and fiscal crises. And yet, the Fitzgaraldo of self-congratulatory remarks from Irish public officials pushes on – ever deeper into the denial of our bleak fiscal reality.


Box-Out:
All last week we have been hearing about the IMF endorsing Irish Government ‘austerity measures’ aimed at bringing under control our runaway train of public spending. Rhetoric aside, real numbers suggest that at least in one area – that of public sector employment – months after setting itself some modest targets for public workforce reductions, the Government is nowhere near delivering the real progress. Chart below, taken from the latest Quarterly Household National Survey data released last week, clearly illustrates the prevalence of past trends in overall employment.
While private economy employment shows catastrophic collapse in total numbers working in industry, construction, wholesale and retail services, basic repairs, accommodation and food services, administrative and support services and professional and technical support services, the same data shows precipitous rise in employment numbers across all three broadly defined public sectors.

Subsequently, the chart below shows an even more disconcerting trend.
In addition to by-now customary steady and precipitous rise in unemployment, we are also experiencing rapid withdrawals from the labour force participation as more and more people are falling into our deep welfare trap or undertake an emigration option. This trend – of collapsing employment and rising unemployment – now poised to threaten our long-term demographic dividend, or the expected higher returns to younger labour force that many of Irish policy makers and analysts close to the Government circles are so keen on referring to in their rosy forecasts.

Well, of course the public sector is rolling in the dough as we are taking a pay cut: