12/5/2013: Open Europe on Trade in Services

A very interesting piece of research from Open Europe thinktank, focusing on the potential economic impact from liberalising services trade within the EU: http://www.openeurope.org.uk/Content/Documents/Pdfs/kickstartinggrowthEUservices.pdf

Here are some highlights:

Chart below shows gains from the full implementation of the rather limited EU Services Directive:

And on to the extension of the EU Directive (notice that Ireland is in the higher benefits group of countries as our exports of services are both growing at the faster rate than EU average and constitute already a higher proportion of total external trade than EU average).

Also, recall that "The Economic Adjustment Programme for Ireland, February 2011 [states]: “Enhanced competition in the services sector modelled in the simulations…translates into a 0.1% increase in employment and a 0.5% increase in GDP over a 10-year period.” “[The Irish] Government will introduce legislative changes to remove restrictions to trade and competition in sheltered sectorsincluding: [the legal profession, medicalservices and the pharmacy
profession]”.

Lastly, comparing the relative significance of trade in services liberalisation to other potential means for boosting economic growth in Europe:

This is the debate that has, unfortunately, stalled in Europe with the onset of the crisis, as did the reforms under the Services Directive.

12/5/2013: How Bitcoin works

Good infographic on bitcoin: http://thumbnails.visually.netdna-cdn.com/bitcoin-infographic_5029189c9cbaf.jpg

h/t to @mbauwens

12/5/2013: On euro's future...

A very interesting contribution from Niall Ferguson to the debate about the future of the euro: here. Interestingly, one can juxtapose Ferguson's article against the list of most recent news briefings from the PressEurop:

12/5/2013: What Greek OSI will mean for IMF?

While this story is still speculative, the very idea that IMF can be forced to take a haircut on its holdings of Greek bonds is very much significant. In my view:

1. IMF will be dragged into OSI on Greek bonds, although the timing of this uncertain;
2. IMF deserves to be dragged into OSI on Greek bonds because the Fund has - begrudgingly - agreed to the EU formula for dealing with the Greek crisis that involved no OSI from ECB / EU which would have been required early on to ensure IMF gets repaid;
3. When IMF takes a hit, this will signal much more than the simple 'first time ever' precedent. Because the IMF's close links to the EU leadership have been directly implicated in the botched structuring of the Euro area member states rescues, the IMF leadership will undoubtedly start actively migrating away from the EU dominance toward the BRIC(S).

The disastrous decisions underwritten by the current and the pervious IMF heads in the case of EU will mean, in the end, the vanishing of the relatively unbiased and transparent international lender of last resort to be replaced by the geopolitically-motivated leadership of the BRIC(S).

This will stand in stark contrast to the reformed and much more transparent functioning of the World Bank, started under the leadership of Paul Wolfowitz.

12/5/2013: Much austerity? Not really... & not of the kind we needed

A week ago I published a blogpost exploring IMF data on austerity in Europe, based on a sample of 20 EU countries with advanced levels of economic development (excluding Luxembourg). You can read that post here. The broad conclusions of that post were:

1. There is basically no austerity in Europe, traceable to either changes in deficits, changes in Government spending or changes in debt. If anything, the European fiscal policies can be characterised by a varying degree of fiscal expansionism during the current crisis, relative to the pre-crisis 2003-2007 period.
2. This, of course, does not account for transfers between one set of expenditures (e.g. public investment reductions) and other lines of spending (e.g. banking sector measures).
3. The only area of fiscal policy where austerity is evident is on taxation burden side, which rose in the majority of sampled economies.

The numbers got me worried and in this post I am looking solely on deficits side of Government spending. If there is savage austerity in EU27, so savage it is killing European economies, surely it would show up in General Government deficit numbers. As before all data reported is based on averages and comparatives computed by me from IMF's WEO data as reported in April 2013 edition of the database.

Let's take a closer look.

Only 2 countries out of 20 have recorded a reduction in average deficits during the crisis period (2008-2012) compared to the pre-crisis average (2003-2007). These were Germany, where annual average deficits declined by 0.95 percentage points (pretty significant) and Malta, where annual average deficits fell 0.79 percentage points (also pretty sizeable drop).

On average, EU20 sample annual deficits have increased by a massive 3.44 percentage points over the pre-crisis period. In  non-Euro area states, the average increase was 3.16 percentage points. But in 'savagely austerian' Euro area, the increases averaged 3.51 percentage points.

So far, the Euro area analysts' rhetoric opposing austerity has been focused on 2012 as the year of highest - to-date - cuts. Was this so? Not really:

Again, as above, there is scantly any evidence of deficit reductions, and plenty of evidence that deficits are getting worse and worse. Again, the comparative is not to the absurd levels of spending during peak spending years of the crisis, but to pre-crisis averages. After all, stimulus is not measured by an ever-escalating public spending, but by increase in spending during the recession compared to pre-recession.

The same conclusion can be reached if we look at 2007 deficit compared to 2012 deficit.

In other words, folks, Europe has had, so far, only 3 measurable forms of austerity, none comfortable to the arguments we keep hearing from European Left:

1. Tax increases (remember, we want to soak the rich even more, right?)
2. Revenue re-allocations to banks measures (remember, no one on Europe's official Left has come out with a proposition that banks should not be bailed out) and to social welfare (clearly, the Left would have liked to spend even more on this)
3. Germany

Note: we must recognise the simple fact that social welfare spending will rise in a recession for a good reason. The argument here is not that it should not (that's a different matter for different debate), but that when it does increase, the resulting increase is a form of Government consumption stimulus.

So let's make the following argument: Euro area did not experience 'austerity' in any pure form in the reductions in deficits. Instead, it experienced a 'stimulus' that was simply wasted on programmes and policies that had nothing to do with growth stimulus (e.g. banks supports). Here are two charts to illustrate:

What the charts above clearly show is that Euro area can be divided into three types of member states:

• Type 1: states where cumulated 5 year surpluses over pre-crisis period gave way to cumulated 5 year deficits. These are: Estonia, Finland, Spain and Ireland.
• Type 2: states where cumulated 5 year deficits over the pre-crisis period were replaced by more benign deficits over the crisis period period. These are Germany and Malta.
• Type 3: all other euro area states where cumulated 5 year deficits over pre-crisis period were replaced by even deeper cumulated deficits over the 5 years of the crisis.

The only two types of fiscal policy that Euro area is missing in its entirety is the type where pre-crisis deficits gave way to crisis period cumulated surpluses (no state in the sample delivers on this) and the type where pre-crisis surpluses gave way to shallower crisis-period surpluses (only one European state - Sweden - qualifies here).

Oh, and one last bit relating to the chart above: all of the peripheral countries, save Italy, had a massive increase in deficits on cumulated basis during the crisis compared to pre-crisis period. Apparently this is the savage austerity that has been haunting their economies.


Updated:
An interesting issue raised by one of the readers:

And my response:

8/5/2013: Thomas Sowell on Language, Evidence & Inquiry

Thomas Sowell doing what he does best: asking uncomfortable questions. http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2013/05/08/words-that-replace-thought-n1588497?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

This got me thinking: there are, as Sowell puts it 'words that replace thought', but there are even more detrimental to inquiry 'words that prevent thought'. In fact, his example of word 'diversity' is one. It is virtually impossible to challenge anything relating to the thesis that 'diversity is intrinsically good' without being shut down on the grounds that any argument to the contrary of the thesis is automatically an argument in favour of some exclusion (racism, anti-semitism, sexism, and so on...).  The only possible by-pass to this problem is to argue that 'diversity has no effect'.

But this falls into the trap discussed briefly here http://andrewgelman.com/2013/05/06/against-optimism-about-social-science/
under the file-drawer bias in publishing.

8/5/2013: Blackrock Institute Survey: N. America and W. Europe, May 2013

Just as I published April update from Blackrock Investment Institute Economic Cycle surveys, here comes May one for North America and Western Europe:

 Now, note change in Ireland's position compared to April:

May summary:

And conclusions (italics are mine):
"This month’s North America and Western Europe Economic Cycle Survey presented a large shift on the outlook for global growth over the next 12 months – although a net proportion of respondents remains positive, this is now a figure of 41%, compared with a net 71% last month. [In other words, things are turning gloomier for global growth outlook]

With regards to the US, the proportion of respondents expecting recession over the next 6 months remains low, with the consensus view firmly that North America as whole is in mid-cycle expansion. [In other words, current growth rates are not expected to rise much as would have been consistent with early-cycle expansion]

In Europe, the view continues to be more disparate, with a generally stronger northern Europe contrasted by continuing weakness in Eurozone as a whole. Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain in particular are described in a recessionary state, with the consensus view remaining in this phase at the 6 month horizon in each case."

8/5/2013: Olli Rehn Departs Reality Once Again

If one needs an example of out-of-touch, reality-denying and self-satisfied EU Commissioner, travel no further than Olli Rehn. Here's the latest instalment from Court's Favourite Entertainer of Things Surreal:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-394_en.htm

The speech focuses on what went wrong in Cyprus.

In the speech, Mr Rehn commits gross omissions and conjures gross over-exaggerations.

Nowhere in his speech does Mr Rehn acknowledge that Cypriot banks were made insolvent overnight by the EU (including EU Commission, where Mr Rehn is in charge of Economic and Monetary affairs) mishandling of PSI in Greek government bonds.

Nowhere in his speech does Mr Rehn acknowledge that Cypriot banks were massively over-invested in 'core tier 1 capital' in the form of zero risk-weighted sovereign bonds (Greek bonds) on the basis of direct EU and Basel regulations that treated this junk as risk-free assets. Mr Rehn states that "The banking problems were aggravated by poor practices of risk management. Lacking adequate oversight, the largest Cypriot banks built up excessive risk exposures." But Cypriot banks largest risk mispricing took place on their Greek Government bond holdings and this was (a) blessed by the EU regulators and (b) made more egregious in terms of risks involved by the EU madness of Greek PSI.

Mr Rehn claims that "The problems of Cyprus built up over many years. At their origin was an oversized banking sector that thrived on attracting foreign deposits with very favourable conditions." Nowhere is Mr Rehn making a statement that the size of Cypriot banking sector was never an issue with the EU, neither at the point of Cyprus admission into the euro, nor at the accession to the EU, nor in any prudential reviews of Cypriot financial system. Mr Rehn flat out fails to relate his statement on deposits to the fact that the EU is currently pushing banks to hold higher deposits / loans ratios, not lower, and that higher deposits / loans ratio is normally seen to be a sign of banking system stability. Mr Rehn is also plain wrong on his claims about the nature of deposits in Cyprus. Chart below shows that Cypriot banks' deposits more than doubled in Q1 2008-Q1 2010 on foot of the EU-created mess in Greece and the rest of the periphery.

Source: @Steve_Hanke

And here's proof that Cypriot banks were running a shop with deposits well in excess of loans, implying low degree of risk leveraging, until Mr Rehn and his colleagues waltzed in with their botched 'rescue' efforts:

Source: Washington Post.

Olli Rehn could not be bothered to read IMF assessment of Cypriot economy from November 2011 (Article IV report) - despite him citing EU Commission June 2011 'warnings' - where IMF clearly states that the core problems faced by Cypriot banking system stem from Greece (page 14) and local commercial banks' loans, not depositors or foreign depositors. On deposits, IMF states (page 17 paragraph 21) "non-resident deposits (NRD) in Cypriot banks (excluding deposits raised abroad by foreign affiliates) are €23 billion (125 percent of GDP), most of which are short-term at low interest rates." Thus, IMF directly, explicitly and incontrovertibly contradicts Mr Rehn's statement about foreign deposits having been extended on "very favourable conditions".

IMF further states that when it comes to deposits, significant risk is also poised by "€17 billion in deposits collected in the Greek branches of the three largest Cypriot-owned banks could be subject to

outflows in response to difficult conditions in Greece. Outflows in the first half of 2011were close to €3 billion (nearly 15 percent of the total), although a portion of these returned to the Cypriot parents as NRD." ECB chart below confirms this risk materialising in the wake of Mr Rehn's structured disaster in Greece:

This outflow knocked out billions out of deposits cushion that Cypriot banks needed to reduce their financing needs. And Mr Rhen - the architect in charge of this disaster - has nothing to say about it.

I can go on and on. Virtually every paragraph of Mr Rehn's statement is open to critical examination. 

That is hardly news - Mr Rehn has made so many gaffes and outright bizarre statements in the past (including his assertions at every pre-bailout junction that each peripheral country heading into bailout was fully solvent, fiscally sustainable, etc), he became not just a laughing stock of the markets, but a contrarian indicator for reality. What is of concern is that Mr Rehn is still being given the task of speaking for the Commission on Monetary and Fiscal affairs.

Olli Rehn should read something more cogent than his own speeches on what has happened in Cyprus (e.g. business.financialpost.com/2013/03/28/seeds-of-cyprus-disaster-planted-months-ago-by-eu/ and www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/02/us-eurozone-cyprus-laiki-insight-idUSBRE9310GQ20130402 or http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323501004578386762342123182.html) and preferably do so free of charge to European taxpayers, on his own time, while up-skilling for his next job.

7/5/2013: Irish Services Index, Q1 2013 data

Irish Services Index is out today for Q1 2013 and here are some details (monthly data analysis to follow). Keep in mind, data only starts from Q1 2009, so when referencing current levels of activity to peak, that refers to peak from Q1 2009 and not relative to pre-crisis activity.

• Value in Wholesale & Retail Trade, Repair of Motor Vehicles & Motorcycles sector declined in Q1 2013 to 105.2 q/q (down 3.22% from 108.7 in Q4 2012) and is down 5.40% y/y. Q4 2012 value index was down 1.36% y/y, so things are getting worse faster. Relative to peak (since 2009 Q1 data start) the index is now down 5.40%. 
• Value index for Transportation and Storage sector slipped marginally from 110.5 in Q4 2012 to 110.0 in Q1 2013 (-0.45% q/q) and is up 5.97% y/y. However, rate of annual growth declined in Q1 2013 compared to Q4 2012 when it stood at 8.97%. Relative to peak the index is still down 9.39%.
• Accommodation and food services activities index also slipped marginally from 104.7 in Q4 2012 to 104.3 in Q1 2013 (down 0.38% q/q). Y/y index is up 3.48% in Q1 2013 and this is a slight gain on 3.05% y/y growth in Q4 2012. However, relative to peak index reading is still down 14.86%.

• Information and communication sector index remained practically flat in Q1 2013 in q/q terms at 116.6 which is only 0.09% up on 116.5 in Q4 2012. Y/y index is up 3.83% and this shows deceleration in growth from +8.47% growth posted in Q4 2012. Despite this, Q1 2013 marks the peak of activity in this sector for any quarter since Q1 2009.
• In contrast with ICT sector activity, the knowledge economy core services sub-sector, Professional, scientific and technical activities index has suffered steep declines since 2009. In Q1 2013 the index stood at 91.2 (up 0.22% q/q) up only 0.55% y/y. This marks a minor reversal of a significant decline of -8.36% recorded in 12 month through Q4 2012. The index is down massive 29.14% on peak.

• Administrative and support service activities index has been a surprising performer during the crisis. In Q4 2012 it stood at 104.7 and Q1 2013 this increased to 110.4 a gain of 5.44% q/q. Index is now up 20.92% y/y and this compounds 11.38% y/y growth recorded in Q4 2012. Q1 2013 marks the peak quarter on record for the sub-sector.
• Overall services index slipped from 107.2 in Q4 2012 to 106.2 in Q1 2013 (-0.93% q/q), although activity is still up 0.85% y/y. Y/y growth in Q1 2013 marks a slowdown from 2.19% y/y expansion in Q4 2012. The index overall is 0.93% below the peak and is currently running slightly behind the level of activity recorded in Q1 2009.

Overall, quarterly data shows weakening in Services sectors performance, and stripping out the effects of ICT (dominated by tax transfers-booking MNCs), Services side of the economy is showing weaknesses that are alarming. Recall that exports of services growth in 2010-2012 acted to compensate for declines in domestic demand and weaker growth (turning negative) in exports of goods. Should Services activity continue to suffer even modest declines, our GDP and GNP growth will be impaired. 

To see more forward-looking data, read my analysis of Services PMI for April: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/05/352013-irish-services-pmi-april-2013.html

7/5/2013: Blackrock Institute: April 2013 Global Economic Conditions - 2

More updates from the Blackrock Investment Institute Economic Cycle surveys for April 2013. Here are core charts for regions not covered in the previous post.

Note of caution: some of the countries coverage in responses is thin, so data should be treated as only indicative. And the surveys are based on opinion of external experts, not Blackrock internal views.



EMEA:
"With caveat on the depth of country-level responses, which can differ widely, this month’s EMEA Economic Cycle Survey presented a generally bearish outlook for the region. However, there has been a marked improvement in the outlook for Eastern European countries at the 12 month horizon, compared to earlier reports this year.

The majority of respondents for the Czech Republic, Croatia, Egypt, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, and the Ukraine describe these countries in a recessionary state; however only half of these -- Croatia, Slovakia, Slovenia and the Ukraine -- are expected to remain so by the majority of economists, at the 6 month horizon. 

At a longer horizon of 12 months, the outlook becomes more positive within Eastern Europe, with only the economies of Slovenia and Slovakia expected to continue to weaken."

Asia Pacific:

"...continuing bullish outlook for the region. Out of the 14 countries covered, only Singapore and Vietnam are currently described to be in a recessionary state. Over next 6 months the balance of consensus opinion shifts back to expansion for these countries, while in Australia the proportion of economists expecting recession increases to 50%. Australia stands out as the only country in the region where respondents expect the economy will weaken over the next year."

Latin America: 

"With a caveat on the depth of country-level responses, which differs widely, this month’s Latin America Economic Cycle Survey presented a generally bullish outlook for the region. Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Peru and Chile are described to be in expansionary phases of the cycle and expected to remain so over the next 2 quarters, while Brazil is expected to mature from early-expansion to mid-cycle expansion and Chile is expected to move from mid-cycle expansion to late-cycle expansion. 

The exceptions to this theme within the region were Venezuela and Argentina. Both are described by the consensus of economists to be in a recessionary state, with growing proportion respondents expecting this to continue at the 6 month horizon." 

7/5/2013: Blackrock Institute: April 2013 Global Economic Conditions - 1

A number of updates from the Blackrock Investment Institute Economic Cycle surveys for April 2013. Here are core charts.

Note of caution: some of the countries coverage in responses is thin, so data should be treated as only indicative. And the surveys are based on opinion of external experts, not Blackrock internal views.

Global outlook: 

"...a positive outlook on global growth, with a net 71% of 127 economists expecting the global economy will get stronger over the next year, (2% higher from the March report), based on North America and Western Europe panel."

For the EMEA panel, "Respondents remain positive on the global growth cycle, with a net 57% of 64 respondents expecting a strengthening world economy over the next 12 months – however this is large downward shift from the net 74% figure last month."

Asia Pacific panel: "The global growth outlook remains positive, with a net of 71% of participants expecting a stronger global economy over the next 12 months; however this is a large step down from the net 84% figure in last month’s report."

Latin American panel: "The global growth outlook remains positive, with a net 47% of 49 participants expecting a stronger global economy over the next 12 months; however this is a large step down from the net 62% in last month’s report."

North America and Western Europe:

"With regards to the US, the proportion of respondents expecting recession over the next 6 months remains low, with the consensus view firmly that North America as whole is in mid-cycle expansion. 

In Europe, the view continues to be more disparate, with the UK and Eurozone as a whole described in a recessionary state. With caveat that the depth of country coverage varies significantly, the consensus view remains recessionary at the 6 month horizon for France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Belgium."

Note: Ireland results are based on very 'thin' data. 

More regions to follow in the next post.

6/5/2013: Self-contradictions & EU Commission

Trapped in their own failures, EU 'leaders' are no longer simply contradicting each other - they are now contradicting themselves. And, I must add, via ever more apparent and bizarre statements.
Behold the latest instalment of absurdity from one of the multiple EU 'Presidents': the man in charge of the EU economic policies and performance, European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso. As reported in the EUObserver (http://euobserver.com/economic/120040), Mr Barroso stated that "What is happening in France and Portugal is not Merkel's or Germany's fault … The crisis and their problems are not a result of German policy or the fault of the EU. It is the result of excessive spending, lack of competitiveness and irresponsible trading in the financial markets."
Thus,

1. Loose monetary policy by the ECB that was custom-tailored to suit German needs during 2002-2007 period had nothing to do with the crisis in the peripheral states, despite the fact that it triggered vast inflows of capital from Germany (and other core states) into the euro area periphery, inflating assets bubbles left, right and centre, and leading to unsustainable debt accumulation in these economies.
2. ECB (heavily influenced by German ethos and political economy) and EU Commission and regulatory bodies' insistence on treating all sovereign bonds issued by the euro area states as risk-free assets on banks balance sheets (the main trigger for Cypriot crisis and the reason for massive transfers of banking sector costs onto taxpayers in Ireland and other member states) had nothing to do with Berlin or with Berlin's insistence on closing its eyes on what was happening in regulation / enforcement EU-wide.
3. Berlin's inability to reign in German (among other) banks' gross misplacing of risks in interbank lending to other euro area banks had nothing to do with the crisis.
4. Berlin's insistence, repeated parrot-like by Mr Barroso and his colleagues in the Commission, that the whole crisis can be addressed via fiscal adjustments (recall, that was the position the EU Commission occupied for the last 6 years) and current account rebalancing has nothing to do with mis-shaped economic policy responses across the EU since 2008 crisis onset.
5. Berlin's 'guidance' toward internecine and economically illiterate Fiscal Compact, eagerly endorsed by Mr Barroso and his colleagues in recent past, has nothing to do with the failure of Europe to respond to the crisis.
6. Berlin's opposition to the half-baked EU ideas about stimulating growth in euro periphery that shut the door on any real stimulus has nothing to do with the crisis.
7. Berlin's opposition to increasing domestic demand and abandoning contractionary pursuit of current account surpluses, also noted by Mr Barroso's Commission in the past, had nothing to do with the crisis duration or depth.

Mr Barroso also claimed that Chancellor Merkel is "one of the only [leaders], if not the only leader at the European level who best understands what is going on."

Really? Suppose so. In this case, Mr Barroso has either no clue what is going on, or simply doesn't care to be consistent with his own exhortations of the recent past, because he openly and directly contradicted Ms Merkel couple of weeks ago by claiming that 'austerity was overdone' and had "reached its limits."

Irony has reached so far in Mr. Barroso's waltzing across the ideological & economic policy landscape that according to the EU's 'President', Ms Merkel's brilliance also encompasses the fact she is presiding over German economy currently sliding toward a recession. IMF analysis shows real GDP growth in Germany will fall from 4.024% and 3.096% in 2010 and 2011 to 0.865% and 0.613% in 2012 and 2013. This might be better-than-average record for the euro area, but it is hardly an achievement worth praising.

Someone should point to Mr Barroso that eating one's cake (taking a populist position against austerity, and thus Ms Merkel) and having it (taking an appeasing position toward the major architect of all economic policy blunders so far deployed in Europe since the onset of the crisis) is just something that doesn't happen outside the make-belief world of Brussels.

5/5/2013: Things are going according to plan... in Italy & Germany

That euro area 'policy' for dealing with the crisis is working marvelously, yeah?

Source: Euromoney Country Risk
Note: lower ECR score = higher sovereign credit risk

Yes, Italy's bonds are trading at much lower yields, and the country is issuing new debt at lower costs... but how much of that has to do with something / anything that Italian Government has done, as opposed to the overall shifts in markets sentiment / liquidity flows, who knows? One thing is for sure, absent yields changes, Italian fundamentals are getting worse, not better. Ditto, between, for all other 'peripherals'.

4/5/2013: European way?

Here's an interesting chart that summarises both, the source of European disease and the nature of the European response to the crisis:

Source

And the point is: during the current crisis, Europeans have opted not so much to reduce Government spending, as to hike taxes, state-controlled prices and charges. Transfer of income from households to banks and Government, exacerbated by the Great Recession and collapse of borrowing have meant a dramatic decline in households' contribution to the economy. End result: Europe is about to go into a Great Depression.

4/5/2013: Higher Income vs Higher Subjective Well-Being

A very interesting paper on the topic I had a chance to briefly discuss on twitter recently. Basically, does life satisfaction / happiness decline with income increases? In other words, is there a point at which people earning more are experiencing less happiness? Is there a point of saturation?

"Subjective Well-Being and Income: Is There Any Evidence of Satiation?" by Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, NBER Working Paper No. 18992 from April 2013 (http://www.nber.org/papers/w18992) attempts to shed some light on this question, often debated and subject of may research papers in the past.

Headline results [emphasis in italics is mine]: "Many scholars have argued that once “basic needs” have been met, higher income is no longer associated with higher in subjective well-being. We assess the validity of this claim in comparisons of both rich and poor countries, and also of rich and poor people within a country. Analyzing multiple datasets, multiple definitions of “basic needs” and multiple questions about well-being, we find no support for this claim. The relationship between well-being and income is roughly linear-log and does not diminish as incomes rise. If there is a satiation point, we are yet to reach it."

Some more beef from the paper (unfortunately - not available to general public, but here's a link to the authors more condensed article on it: http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/04/subjective-well-being-income).

"In 1974 Richard Easterlin famously posited that increasing average income did not raise average well-being, a claim that became known as the Easterlin Paradox." Needless to say, many scholars since then picked the idea and even advanced it to greater extremes.

Per authors, however, "in recent years new and more comprehensive data has allowed for greater testing of Easterlin’s claim. Studies by us and others have pointed to a robust positive relationship between well-being and income across countries and over time (Deaton, 2008; Stevenson and Wolfers, 2008; Sacks, Stevenson, and Wolfers, 2013).

"Yet, some researchers have argued for a modified version of Easterlin’s hypothesis, acknowledging the existence of a link between income and well-being among those whose basic needs have not been met, but claiming that beyond a certain income threshold, further income is unrelated to well-being. The existence of such a satiation point is claimed widely, although there has been no formal statistical evidence presented to support this view. For example Diener and Seligman (2004, p.5) state that “there are only small increases in well-being” above some threshold. While Clark, Frijters and Shields (2008, p.123) state more starkly that “greater economic prosperity at some point ceases to buy more happiness,” a similar claim is made by Di Tella and MacCulloch (2008, p.17): “once basic needs have been satisfied, there is full adaptation to further economic growth.”

"The income level beyond which further income no longer yields greater well-being is typically said to be somewhere between $8,000 and $25,000. Layard (2003, p.17) argues that “once a country has over $15,000 per head, its level of happiness appears to be independent of its income;” while in subsequent work he argued for a $20,000 threshold (Layard, 2005 p.32-33). Frey and Stutzer (2002, p.416) claim that “income provides happiness at low levels of development but once a threshold (around $10,000) is reached, the average income level in a country has little effect on average subjective well-being.”

It is worth noting the thresholds in income cited above - all are well below the median and mean incomes in the advanced economies today. The test carried out by the authors of the study cover incomes both below these thresholds and above, including to well above (multiples of almost 7 times the highest threshold mentioned).

"Many of these claims, of a critical level of GDP beyond which happiness and GDP are no longer linked, come from cursorily examining plots of well-being against the level of per capita GDP. Such graphs show clearly that increasing income yields diminishing marginal gains in subjective well-being.

"However this relationship need not reach a point of nirvana beyond which further gains in well-being are absent. For instance Deaton (2008) and Stevenson and Wolfers (2008) find that the well-being–income relationship is roughly a linear-log relationship, such that, while each additional dollar of income yields a greater increment to measured happiness for the poor than for the rich, there is no satiation point.

So now, to the paper itself. Some basics first:

"In this paper we provide a sustained examination of whether there is a critical income level beyond which the well-being–income relationship is qualitatively different, a claim referred to as the modified-Easterlin hypothesis.

"As a statistical claim, we shall test two versions of the hypothesis. The first, a stronger version, is that beyond some level of basic needs, income is uncorrelated with subjective well-being; the second, a weaker version, is that the well-being–income link estimated among the poor differs from that found among the rich.

"Claims of satiation have been made for comparisons between rich and poor people within a country, comparisons between rich and poor countries, and comparisons of average well-being in countries over time, as they grow. The time series analysis is complicated by the challenges of compiling comparable data over time and thus we focus in this short paper on the cross-sectional relationships seen within and between countries. Recent work by Sacks, Stevenson, and Wolfers (2013) provide evidence on the time series relationship that is consistent with the findings presented here.

"To preview, we find no evidence of a satiation point. The income–well-being link that one finds when examining only the poor, is similar to that found when examining only the rich. We show that this finding is robust across a variety of datasets, for various measures of subjective well-being, at various thresholds, and that it holds in roughly equal measure when making cross-national comparisons between rich and poor countries as when making comparisons between rich and poor people within a country."

Some actual results:

The above shows that the well-being-income gradient is strong for the rich countries and even stronger for the countries where income per capita exceed USD15,000 (GDP per capita). Per authors: "These data clearly reject both the weak and strong versions of the modified-Easterlin hypothesis." Authors attain qualitatively identical results for a number of other measures / surveys of well-being. "Each of these datasets strongly reject" the modified-Easterlin hypothesis. "Moreover, to
the extent that the well-being–income relationship changes, it appears stronger for rich countries."

Core conclusions: "While the idea that there is some critical level of income beyond which income no longer impacts well-being is intuitively appealing, it is at odds with the data. As we have shown, there is no major well-being dataset that supports this commonly made claim. To be clear, our analysis in this paper has been confined to the sorts of evaluative measures of life satisfaction and happiness that have been the focus of proponents of the (modified) Easterlin hypothesis. In an interesting recent contribution, Kahneman and Deaton (2010) have shown that in the United States, people earning above $75,000 do not appear to enjoy either more positive affect nor less negative affect than those earning just below that. We are intrigued by these findings, although we conclude by noting that they are based on very different measures of well-being, and so they are not necessarily in tension with our results. Indeed, those authors also find no satiation point for
evaluative measures of well-being."

Here is a slightly clearer chart from the blogpost by The Economist:

4/5/2013: Profit margins in Irish Services and Manufacturing: April 2013

Since I've been updating my database on PMI for Ireland (see Manufacturing PMI baseline results for April, as well as a post on Services PMI and a post on latest trends in employment as signalled by PMIs), it is also time to update dynamics analysis on profitability in both sectors.

Now, Services PMI survey covers profitability as a separate question, and it is reported in the post linked above. There is no comparative question in PMI for Manufacturing survey.

Over time, I have been tracking implied profitability changes in both sectors on a comparable basis as a difference between changes in input costs and output charges by the reporting firms. In a sense - it is a metric of profit margins dynamics that is comparable across both sectors.


Profit margins index for Services has declined from -14.29 in March 2013 to -16.39 in April. April reading was worse than -11.96 a year ago and worse than 12mo MA at -15.7. Dynamically, 3mo MA through April is at -15.0 which represents worsening in profitability conditions compared to -13.6 average for 3mo through January 2013 and is worse than -13.8 3mo average through April 2012.

Longer-term comparatives: since January 2012 through April 2013, Services profitability index averaged -15.31 - a rate of profit margins decline that is worse than the average rate recorded for 3 years period of January 2009-December 2011.

Profit margins in Manufacturing sectors have also deteriorated in April 2013 at -7.32, but the rate of deterioration was slower than in March 2013 when it stood at -12.04 and much slower than -22.86 rate of decline in profit margins recored in April 2012.

12mo MA is now at -11.1 and 3mo average rate was -15.2 for 3 months through January 2013, while 3mo average for February-April 2013 is at much more benign -9.9. In other words, there is moderation in the rate of margins decreases in recent months.

Longer-term dynamics are shown on the chart below in terms of 3 year averages. Since January 2012 through April 2013, Manufacturing profitability index averaged -13.83 - a rate of profit margins decline that is better than the average rate recorded for 3 years period of January 2009-December 2011 (-14.1). January 2012-April 2013, average rate of deterioration is still the second worst on the record.

An interesting aside: notice significant improvements in profitability in late 2008 - mid 2010 being exhausted in 2011-present in the Services sector and similar, but slightly differently timed changes in Manufacturing? These nicely coincide with the period of most dramatic unit labour costs declines and overall cost-competitiveness gains in the Irish economy. And, just as those gains virtually stopped in 2011-on, so did profit margins conditions improvements.

4/5/2013: Corporate tax rate Laffer Curve

A very interesting, albeit not too rigorous (econometrically) exercise on the relationship between corporate tax rates and corporate tax revenues (the Laffer Curve):
http://alephblog.com/2013/05/03/on-the-laffer-curve-regarding-marginal-corporate-tax-rates/

Worth a read.

Top of the line conclusion: ex-Norway, "...at a 5% level of significance, the equation is significant, with a prob-value of 1.4%, and all but one of the coefficients are significant, and the coefficient on the squared term has a prob value of 11.6%. The signs all go the right way, and the intercept is near zero."

So: "It looks like there is some validity to the idea that as marginal corporate tax rates rise, so do corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP, until the taxes get too high. I didn’t test anything else.  With both equations we learn two ideas:

• The tax take tops out at a 30% marginal rate
• You don’t give up much if you set the marginal rate at 20%"

3/5/2013: Basel 2.5 can lead to increased liquidity & contagion risks

Banca d'Italia research paper No. 159, "Basel 2.5: potential benefits and unintended consequences" (April 2013) by Giovanni Pepe looks at the Basel III framework from the risk-weighting perspective. Under previous Basel rules, since 1996, "…the Basel risk-weighting regime has been based on the distinction between the trading and the
banking book. For a long time credit items have been weighted less strictly if held in the trading book, on the assumption that they are easy to hedge or sell."

Alas, the assumption of lower liquidity risks associated with assets held on trading book proved to be rather faulty. "The Great Financial Crisis made evident that banks declared a trading intent on positions that proved difficult or impossible to sell quickly. The Basel 2.5 package was developed in 2009 to better align trading and banking books’ capital treatments." Yet, the question remains as to whether the Basel 2.5 response is adequate to properly realign risk pricing for liquidity risk, relating to assets held on trading book.

"Working on a number of hypothetical portfolios [the study shows] that the new rules fell short of reaching their target and instead merely reversed the incentives. A model bank can now achieve a material capital saving by allocating its credit securities to the banking book [as opposed to the trading book], irrespective of its real intention or capability of holding them until maturity. The advantage of doing so is particularly pronounced when the incremental investment increases the concentration profile of the trading book, as usually happens for exposures towards banks’ home government. Moreover, in these cases trading book requirements are exposed to powerful cliff-edge
effects triggered by rating changes."

In the nutshell, Basel 2.5 fails to get the poor quality assets risks properly priced and instead created incentives for the banks to shift such assets to the different section of the balance sheet. The impact of this is to superficially inflate values of sovereign debt (by reducing risk-weighted capital requirements on these assets). Added effect of this is that Basel 2.5 inadvertently increases the risk of sovereign-bank-sovereign contagion cycle.

The paper is available at: http://www.bancaditalia.it/pubblicazioni/econo/quest_ecofin_2/qef159/QEF_159.pdf

3/5/2013: Irish Employment in Services & Manufacturing: April PMIs

On foot of both NCB Manufacturing PMI and NCB Services PMI for Ireland for April 2013, let's take a look at underlying employment conditions signals from the two core sectors of the economy.

From the top:

Manufacturing and Services PMI readings continued to diverge in April for the 5th consecutive month, with headline PMI readings for:

• Manufacturing PMI falling to 48.0 in April from 48.6 in March marking the second consecutive monthly sub-50 reading. 12mo MA is now at 51.3 and Q1 2013 average is at 50.1 so things are moving South for Manufacturing in recent months.
• Services PMI rising to 55.2 in April from 52.3 in March. 12mo MA is at 53.3 and Q1 2013 average is 54.2, implying PMI readings moving North for Services in recent months.

These trends in overall PMI readings were broadly repeated in the Employment sub-index dynamics:

• Employment index for Manufacturing slipped to 46.9 in which is significantly below 50.0 and marks second consecutive month of declines and sub-50 readings. In the last 6 months, index declined 4 times, but was below 50.0 only in two months. 12mo MA is at 51.3, but Q1 2013 average is 50.1 and this comes after 52.0 average for Q4 2012. So things are sliding and sliding rather fast.
• Employment index for Services, in contrast, posted a robust increase in April to 55.2 from 52.3 in March. April marked ninth consecutive month of employment increases being signaled by Services PMI, which is a good strong trend. Thus, 12mo MA is at robust 53.3 and Q1 2013 average is at 54.2 - a slower rate of growth on Q4 2012 average of 56.0, but statistically significant growth nonetheless.

Tables detailing employment indices changes below:

Manufacturing:

Services:

Now for the reminder: Employment in Services has far less tangible connection to actual sector activity than Employment in Manufacturing, with volatility-adjusted 1 point increase in respective headline PMI implying 0.67 units increase in employment index in Services against 0.87 units rise in manufacturing employment index over historical data horizons:

Click on the chart to see in detail the overall dynamics y/y for April in employment and PMI indices, clearly showing the switch between Services and Manufacturing in terms of the sectors' position relative to economic recovery. If in 2011 Services were a drag on growth and employment, while Manufacturing was experiencing strong gains, by 2013 Services became the core driver for positive momentum in both growth and employment, with Manufacturing pushing economic activity and employment down.

3/5/2013: Not a week goes by without a Tax Haven Ireland story?

More from the 'Tax Haven Island' newsflow, with a second story this week: "US firms paid an average tax rate of 8% profits in Ireland"
http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/0503/390280-us-corporations-tax/

I wonder if Michelle Obama's rumoured trip to Ireland will include a visit to such sunny tax haven locations as Barrow St, Dublin 2, or IFSC...


To track my posts on Irish Corporate Tax Haven, follow this link : http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/05/252013-news-from-irish-tax-haven.html

Hat tip to:

Updated 08/05/2013: Two new links on the same subject:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c638f73a-978f-11e2-97e0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2SjL5Iq3z

and

http://treasureislands.org/the-capture-of-tax-haven-ireland-the-bankers-hedge-funds-got-virtually-everything-they-wanted/

Hat tip to: 

3/5/2013: Irish Services PMI April 2013: Some good, some make-believe news

For a change from the declining fortunes of Irish manufacturing (aka, production of at least some real tangible stuff by humans, albeit richly peppered with tax arbitrage), the accounting trick called Irish Services (aka, billing of services sold in Mongolia to Dublin by companies minimising tax exposures in the US) is booming.

Good news for GDP. Good or bad news (depending on capex cycle and financial engineering - as exhibited by Apple 'bond' offer this week, etc) for GNP. Even better news for the Government solemnly incapable of supporting growth at home, and thus solely reliant on Mongolian demand for 'Irish' services and Obama administration lag in realising that another corporate tax amnesty is long overdue (note to the White House: check out Ireland's IFSC deposits).

Latest NCB Services PMI for Ireland published today show continued expansion in Services sector:

• Headline Services PMI rose from 52.3 in March to 55.2 in April - statistically significantly above 50.0 for the first time since January 2013. This marks ninth consecutive monthly reading above 50.0, and sixth time the index is above 50 with statistically significant margin.
• Good news: this time around there was significant growth signaled in Transport, Travel, Tourism & Leisure sector (potentially due to twin effects of The Gathering and the EU Presidency - which should really count as subsidy activities this year). However, another significant driver in upside growth were Financial Services (aka IFSC). Business Services and Technology, Media & Telecoms services both recorded moderation in the rate of growth, as signaled by PMI.
• On dynamics side, 12mo MA through April 2013 for Business Activity headline index now stands at 53.3, with 3mo average at 53.7. Both are below 3mo average through January 2013 which stood at 56.2, so there is still some slowdown in the rate of growth. Latest 3mo average is ahead of same period 3mo averages for 2010-2012.

Per last chart above, 

• New Business sub-index remained practically unchanged at 54.2 in April, compared to March (54.1) with both months posting reading statistically above 50.0 - which is good news.
• On dynamics side, 12mo MA was at 53.7 in April 2013 - a healthy reading, with 3mo MA through April 2013 almost bang on at 12mo average level of activity at 53.8. Previous 3mo average through January 2013 was at blistering 56.5, so there is some marked slowdown in the rate of growth. Nonetheless, last 3 months marked the fastest growth for the same three months period for any year since 2010.
• April 2013 was the ninth consecutive month of New Business sub-index readings above 50.0, with seven of these months posting readings statistically significantly above 50.0.

I will blog separately on employment and profitability in both services and manufacturing so stay tuned for details on these.

Business confidence and New Export Business sub-indices both showed some slowdown in growth, but still remain in rude health. On foot of this, employment growth rate improved:

Overall, sarcasm aside, the Services sectors continued to support economic growth, even though much of this growth is coming from the make-believe tax arbitrage stuff. Still, better have make-believe dosh than none at all. And a welcomed reprieve from the past years' trials for the Travel & Toursim sector too.

One note of caution, though: Irish Services PMI have little to do with Irish Services actual activity levels... see here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/04/742013-irish-services-activity-index.html

2/5/2013: ECB's message: "don't let the bed bugs bite..."

In light of today's 'historic' decision by the ECB to lower its refinancing rate to 0.50% from 0.75%, let's just not get too excited, folks.

Consider the historical perspective:

1) ECB rates are low. By ECB-own standards. But they are not low by pretty much anyone else's standards, save for countries, like Canada and Australia, which didn't really have a Great Recession. At least not yet.

2) ECB rates are low today, but they will be higher one day:

And when they do get to those averages, oh… the bond markets valuations are going to fly out of the window (leaving big black holes in banks balance sheets and pension funds assets ledgers), while equities are going to also suffer risk-repricing away from current dizzying expectations. Meanwhile, mortgages and credit costs will rise and rise faster than the ECB rates for 2 reasons: (a) legacy margins rebuilding that is not even started yet, and (b) see 'black hole' on the bonds valuations side. So when we do start heading toward that green dashed line (and above, as ECB averages are above that green line), things are going to go South fast.

3) And the ramp up back to the mean will have to be sustained and drastic:

We are clearly in an unconventional period when it comes to mean reversion. In all previous episodes, mean reversion took at most 40 months of deviation from the mean to deliver on (red lines). This time around we are already into month 53 and counting. The longer the duration of deviation, the greater the imbalance built up as the blue line above clearly shows.

Based on average overshooting of the mean in each reversion episode, we are currently 1.79 percentage points away from the mean target and are likely to see additional 1.71 percentage points overshooting of the target on adjustment, which means that the direction we are heading toward, if previous history of ECB rates were to be our guide (very imperfect, I must add) is 0.5%+1.79%+1.71%=4.0%

Close your eyes and imagine your mortgage bill with:
1) ECB rate at 4.0% and
2) Bank margin on ECB rate of x2 at least of pre-crisis levels.

Now, good luck sleeping.

But, hey, for now, there's more room for ECB to 'ease'…

And yet… things are already bad enough… ECB is running policy at massively above the G3 average rates and there is no real relief to the euro area economy in sight.

So what is really going on? My quick comment for Express today:

"ECB's 25 bps cut in the refinancing rate is the central bank's de facto admission of the limitations to its ability to have a meaningful impact on the ground, in the real economy. Let's start from the diagnosis. With previous rate cuts failing to stimulate credit flows and private sector investment, it is now painfully obvious that the euro area economy is suffering from a structural crisis, not a cyclical or a liquidity crisis.  going into today's rates decision the ECB had really just three choices: 1) Do nothing and keep pressure on the Euro area governments to introduce and implement real structural reforms, 2) Do marginally little to sustain some outward expression of monetary activism, and 3) Do something big to attempt unfreezing both demand and supply of credit. The latter would have entailed a cut in the refinancing rate of 70 basis points and setting up an LTRO- like 3- to 5- years programme for lending against collaterilised business and household loans. It would have been risky, but it would have stood a chance of possibly shifting increasing significantly new credit creation. even more dramatic would have been a programme for indefinite financing of the weaker banks - a super-LTRO - set against explicit targets for their writing down of some SMEs and household loans.

That, in the end, ECB has opted for the second option of providing token expressions of accommodative monetary policy using largely weak tools, speaks volumes about the ECB's inherent legal dilemma. The ECB is facing the problem of a structural crisis in the economy, while being armed with a mandate that forces it to explicitly ignore the real economy. Thus, as the result of the crisis, the ECB has consistently traded-down the reputational curve by continuously deploying 'extraordinary' measures of ever-increasing complexity, which are having little real impact in the private economy. ECB's most-lauded OMT, for example, has had zero positive effect outside the Government bonds markets. In short, much of what ECB is doing is providing backstop insurance for the crisis amplification, but little actual means for dealing with the crisis itself.

As the result, ECB's monetary policy decisions of late can be best viewed in the prism of the EUR foreign exchange rates and European stockmarkets valuations. Liquidity supply into the financial channels that are trapped outside the real economy so far have meant firming up of the euro and increased speculative inflows into European equities that stand contrasted with both the fortunes of the euro area economies and the realities of the European companies earnings. Today's decision simply reinforces this trend. yet, as the recent years have shown, the divergence between financial markets valuations and the real economic activity is the sign of systemic malfunctioning in the monetary, fiscal and economic environments. This is exactly the road down which we are traveling, guided by the ECB Governing Council."

And my tongue-in-cheek top of the line conclusion? "ECB's Council throws a wet napkin at Euro area's economic Chernobyl and rests for lunch… breathless from exhaustion..."

So for all of us in the eurozone, tune in at 00:59:
http://www.anyclip.com/movies/despicable-me/beddie-bye/#!quotes/

2/4/2013: MDH: Do as I imagine... not as I say or do...

So Irish President Michael D. Higgins has called for a “radical rethink” of the “single hegemonic model”, adding that a “pluralism of approaches” is needed in Europe. He also called for a more active ECB and debt pooling in the eurozone.

wait, what's that? Another statement of plausibly sounding populism with underlying internal contradictions so deep, the whole thing makes no sense? Well, yes.

MDH wants more 'pluralism' in policies then calls for 'more active ECB debt pooling' - which of course is anti-pluralist centralisation of policy. Oh, well, if only MDH actually had an idea what he speaks about beyond the cliches of 'bad capitalism, bad, bad, bad'.

And then to add a  self-insult to his self-injury. MDH penned his name to the IBRC bill which converts promissory notes (the 'pluralist' in nature instrument of quasi-governmental debt) into government bonds (the 'centralised' in nature instrument of pure sovereign liability standardised across all countries).

Is MDH no longer a 'do as I say, not as I do' leader but a 'do as I imagine, not as I say or do' leader?

2/5/2013: Gravy, door, windows... JobBridge

Here's something that can be described as a pricey exemplification of the 'Only in Ireland' policy approach to public institutions:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/consultant-report-into-controversial-jobbridge-scheme-recommends-more-reports-29236030.html

That's right: JobBridge 'internships' scheme (or rather 'free labour for few months' scam concocted by the Government to register further 'improvements' in 'labour costs competitiveness') has been assessed by the public sector captive research outfit Indecon (aka ESRI Junior).

And the conclusion of the already pricey report is that we need more and even pricier reports.

Gravy flooding through the door is apparently not enough... need windows access too...