(0) (53)

There is a lot of stuff about Dubai at the moment. The issue of Dubai Ports' purchase of P&O and the reaction by certain American Democrat and Republican politicians is a massive story Stateside, though it has not registered much in the UK, unless you are a reader of the business sections. There is a smell of protectionism in the air in Europe too, with a number of European states scratching each other's eyes out about merger and acquisitions involving banks and utilities. Plus ca change..

Dubai is now a major story on a number of fronts. The BBC recently ran a series of programmes about the incredible amount of construction happening there and the local magnates and immigrants who are driving the economy forward. A vast artificial archipelago of homes and estates has been built into the Gulf. Dubai is also a major business and media centre, a place where a lot of sporting and cultural events goes on. Dubai is also becoming one of the major venues for business conferences in areas such as finance.

So it seems to me that even with all the reservations one might have about that part of the world and the islamist threats not far away, Dubai's vibrancy is a sort of Good Thing. The place has, potentially, the capacity to exert the same impact on parts of the Middle East as Hong Kong did on mainland China. Perhaps it is all a bubble and will go up in smoke, as the Eyeores out there might think, but on the whole I am optimistic. Let's face it, pessimism is a sort of cop-out.

May the meme of liberty spread out from its borders and confound the naysayers. Meanwhile, this man is doing something highly admirable.

(0) (36)

The Oscars are nearly upon us. (Okay, please try to keep reading) One thought prompted by this circus and what goes on in films is how films can carry messages very different from the intentions of the film-maker. A classic example is the 1987 film, Wall Street, in which Michael Douglas gave what I thought was his greatest performance as Gordon Gekko. Gekko is what your average lefty Hollywood producer imagines is a capitalist: incredibly greedy, callous and crooked, stamping the lives of good honest hardworking people, blah, blah, blah. And yet we know that in the course of the speech, Gekko gives his tremendous "greed is good" speech, which I sometimes think reads like Ayn Rand on acid.

A friend of mine, Libertarian Alliance founder Chris Tame, once told me that during this stage of the movie, he burst into applause, much to the surprise of the other cinema-goers. I wonder how many other folk have had the same reaction to a speech or line in a film where without realising it, a pro-capitalist point has been made in a way the director probably had not intended? Has anyone got any examples?

(0) (0)

The ideal gift idea for that collectivist friend in need of enlightenment and help in doing maths. (Thanks to those clever folk at the von Mises Institute.)

(0) (20)

Clive Davis approvingly quotes a book by a fellow called Rod Dreher, a "crunchy conservative" (whatever that is) who is, we are told, a passionate environmentalist, a disliker of suburban sprawl, shopping malls (oh, the vulgarity!), television (ditto), McMansions (huh?) and other regrettable features of consumerist, dollar-obsessed America. Instead, this fellow, who sounds rather like an American Roger Scruton (of whom I am an admirer, at least in parts) is a fan of government restrictions and regulations, and mentions the case of the U.S. Pacific Highway, left pristine and free of crass development by land-use regulations.

There is nothing actually all that new in conservatives embracing controls on development. The very word, conservative, is based on the desire to conserve and protect what exists from the new. During the Industrial Revolution, conservatives like the Poet Robert Southey railed against what they saw as the ugliness of industrialism and the associated sprawl. (Some of the dislike was also based on snobbery and fear of an pwardly mobile and undeferential middle class). The trend has continued. It was that perfect symbol of cuddly English fogeyism, Sir John Betjeman, who took potshots at suburbia, penning one of his most famous verses about that place to the west of London known as Slough. (The former Poet Laureate asked Hitler to bomb it).

What is so striking is how unoriginal and old-hat all this sort of thing is. More interesting to me, however, are those writers who do not imagine that shopping malls or mock-Tudor mansions in Surbiton deserve our scorn. Virginia Postrel has recently written approvingly of a book actually describing sprawl rather than automatically condemning it.

And let's face it, most of us, particularly those with children, live in suburbs or are moving there. It is a conceit, I reckon, of people who have no children, and who do not need the space, to take potshots at those who have decided to leave the supposedly hip inner city. It remains a mystery to me why the desire of people to live in a bit of space and comfort drives certain intellectuals nuts. Maybe it is the garden gnomes.

(0) (1)

"There were Eastern men in felt hats with giant rims of rich gleaming fur, talking to long-bearded Jews about racks of animal pelts - the faces of small nasty critters gaping blankly at the sky. Chinese carrying crates of what he had to assume was China, coopers repairing busted casks, bakers hawking loaves, blonde maidens with piles of oranges, musicians everywhere, grinding hurdy-gurdys or plucking at mutant lutes with huge cantilevers projecting asymmetrically from their necks to support thumping bass halyards. Armenian coffee-sellers carrying bright steaming copper and brass tanks on their persons, bored guards with pikes or halberds, turbaned Turks attempting to buy back strange goods that (Jack realised with a shock) had also been looted from the Vienna siege-camp..."

The above passage relates to when one of the central figures in Stephenson's marvellous Baroque Trilogy enters the-then famous Leipzig fair. What struck me about this section of the book was Stephenson's brilliant description of the sheer fun that markets can involve. (Yes, the curmudgeons out there will start muttering about the triviality of reducing market economics to fun, good heavens). His description even reminded me of a more modern market: the futures exchange in London's Cannon Street. I used to visit the LIFFE building and would look down from the gallery to look at the sea of men - not many women - trading odd-sounding things like short-sterling futures and options, gesticulating at each other in small groups, more often resembling folk on the verge of a pub brawl than a place where gazillions of pounds, dollars and euros were being transacted.

We are so used to critiques of capitalism from people who decry the supposed coldness and soulnessness of markets, unlike the supposedly warmer and more fulfilling communal lifestyles they claim to favour. And yet as Stephenson has reminded me, the market is that supreme example of social interaction and co-operation, often gaudy and loud, alarming even, but never dull.

(0) (50)

One of the advantages of having a comments section is providing me with new ideas to write about, even when the comment in question is so flat-out wrong that it makes me gape with amazement at the screen. In my recent post about the economic fallacies surrounding immigration, a commenter opined that Indian immigrants into the UK were leeching money out of this country by not re-investing it in new businesses but merely writing cheques to "inactive" folks back in the old homeland.

It is a lousy argument on a number of levels, and I am not even going to dwell long on the obvious dangers of inciting distrust and hostility towards economically successful immigrant groups and accusing them of not being sufficiently "patriotic" by not spending all their profits in Britain. The argument also fails because it ignores the subjectivity of economic value. If a businessman earns a million pounds in profit from a drycleaning business in Birmingham and sends the odd cheque back to his aged relatives in Bombay, then how is economic value being destroyed? In the eyes of the businessman, helping his loved ones is worth more to him than investing that money in something else, even though other people might disagree with that decision and think him to be deluded. It is none of my business to force a change in that decision.

Also, that businessman is doing something that supporters of a liberal civil society have traditionally supported: philanthropy. How can it be wrong for a man to steer a portion of his wealth to his dependants, educate them, feed and house them? Who gives any entity the right, least of all the State, the power to say yay or nay to that decision? The argument that such transfers are wrong is an echo of the old Bethamite notion that the State is entitled to seize wealth if that maximises the "greatest happiness of the greatest number".

A final point. No doubt large sums of money are paid by immigrants and migrant workers back to the points of origin all the time. This has happened for centuries. These transfer often sustained people in great hardship.

I have come across some dubious economic arguments in my time, but the idea that immigrants paying money to their folks is some sort of parasitical waste has to be one of the weakest.

(0) (115)

Anthony Browne, writing the main feature article in this week's Spectator, says policymakers have underestimated, or quite possibly fibbed, about the scale of immigration into the United Kingdom from Eastern Europe. I do not want to get into all the cultural arguments that have been aired a lot here in recent months. Suffice to say that Browne makes some good, if slightly alarmist, points about the ability of a small crowded island like Britain to go on taking more and more people, never mind from often very different cultures.

He seems to make the mistake, however, when discussing the impact of immigration on wage rates, of what is known as the "lump of labour fallacy": the notion that there is a fixed amount of work to be performed in an economy. It seems a bit odd that Browne, who calls himself an economic liberal, should fall prey to this fallacy. After all, as surely the late economist Julian L. Simon pointed out, every additional person is not just another mouth to be fed, but another brain and pair of hands to create wealth.

(5) (22)

Which British individual has done the most good for the world during the last half century or more since the Second World War? I nominate Sir John Cowperthwaite, Financial Secretary of Hong Kong from 1961 to 1971, who died last Saturday.

By applying laissez faire ideology to Hong Kong with greater inflexibility than anyone else was at that time even attempting, anywhere, he became, in Patrick Crozier's words, the father of Hong Kong's economic boom.

And that, if you think about it, makes Cowperthwaite the grandfather of the Chinese economic boom.

Without the shining example of Hong Kong, and the economically benign influence that Hong Kong has for a long time now had on nearby places still governed by Beijing, who knows what economic – and political – state China would be in now?

Cowperthwaite was criticised during his time in office for not taxing the people of Hong Kong more, and for ignoring, in particular, education. But has there ever been a more stupendous exercise in business education and everything-else-you-can-think-of education than Hong Kong? Hong Kong has been a University of How To Do It for millions upon millions of Chinese, Chinese who are now struggling to turn China itself from a suicidal and murderous world threat into a creative contributor to the world. The productive and trading templates now being followed in China were mostly devised in Hong Kong, and Hong Kong still provides a huge connection between China and the rest of the world.

So, there is at least a decent chance that China will emerge onto the world stage not as a belligerent superpower in the Soviet mold, but as a creative superpower more like nineteenth century Britain or nineteenth century USA.

Of course China still faces severe problems, as has been well explained here. It could all, and quite soon, go horribly wrong. China's creatively earned wealth and strength might yet – following some kind of economic melt-down – be cashed in to pay for the means to make only mischief on a huge scale.

But China's economic strength is not a total illusion, any more (well, maybe a bit more) than the USA's economic strength was wholly illusory in the late 1920s. (The worry about that comparison being that the USA proved that it could be the engine of world economic growth only after a huge depression and a huge world war.) And if, in a hundred years time, historians are able to look back on a century of (mostly) Chinese creativity and progress rather than of Chinese chaos and ghastliness, Sir John Cowperthwaite will arguably deserve more credit for that happy outcome than any other single individual.

The nightmare always was that the Chinese people would feel that they had to fight and to destroy to get the world's respect. Cowperthwaite's Hong Kong showed the Chinese people that they were capable of unleashing a better and more creative way to be respected, a way that the whole world is already benefiting from.

Patrick Crozier, to whom thanks for the link, picks out this particularly choice quote from the Telegraph obituary of the great man:

As for the paucity of economic statistics for the colony, Cowperthwaite explained that he resisted requests to provide any, lest they be used as ammunition by those who wanted more government intervention.

The state is not your friend. The less it knows, the better.

(0) (12)

"We've taken the biggest surge in national income in years and squandered it. The punters are spending every cent they can and Canberra is encouraging that by handing back its share of the commodity price loot as tax cuts."

Who would say such a thing? Sounds like the rantings of some bleeding heart welfarist think tank, rather than Australia's leading economics consultancy, as Access Economics likes to describe itself.

Yes, Keynesian wannabes Access Economics released a report fretting about interest rate hikes, and it feels the answer is to remove the financial options of individuals and ensure that the government collects and hoards ever more of the people's income. I suppose one should look at it this way; some day soon you might benefit if you find yourself in a geographic or demographic sweet spot that the government needs to court come election time.

Talking about rum plans, this proposal from Deloitte floats an admirable (though not particularly original) idea - swapping tax deductions on work expenses for across-the-board tax cuts. Liberals will start to choke when they see Deloitte's adjustment of the progressive income tax rates:

The poorest tax payers would see their rate cut from 15 per cent to 4 per cent, with the 42 per cent tax rate paid by people earning $75,001-$125,000 falling to 33 per cent. The top 47 per cent rate paid by those earning more than $125,000 could be cut to 44 per cent.

Deloitte would surely have access to the masses of theoretical and empirical evidence showing the superior economic benefits of shrinking the gap between top marginal rates of income tax and the lower rates, not to mention the moral argument. Why this EC (and I do not mean European Community, though maybe I do...) drivel, then? Why do Deloitte believe they need to field a taxation proposal that is going to win elections?

Thankfully, the political party that prides itself on its fiscal responsibility and economic liberalism holds government in Australia. Yet we have a curmudgeonly treasurer (chancellor of the exchequer) who steadfastly refuses to budge over our absurdly high top marginal tax rate of 47%. He is more than happy to ladle out benefits to politically useful groups, however. Oddly named, the Liberal Party of Australia, when one considers it is run by big government conservatives.

Couple these few good men with the leading economics consultancies, who seem to be trying to outdo each other in the social crusading stakes.

Have these people never heard of the Chicago school? I despair.

(0) (4)

Jamie Whyte in The Times is a paragon of rational liberalism. Today he neatly skewers the fallacious thinking of those who impose their own heirarchy of values and risk aversion on the rest of us.

Doctors, he points out, will tend to overvalue health relative to other goods, such as pleasure. They "confound what is good for us with what is good for our health." And this analysis is readily applicable to the army of experts who struggle to control us and get use of our taxes to pursue their own preferences. They all fail to accept that other people have different tastes that in conditions of liberty are traded-off by those people.

Jamie Whyte again:

Politicians always claim that their safety regulations are motivated by concern for people in dangerous jobs. Yet the beneficiaries are always people who do not do dangerous jobs. Workplace health and safety meansures are a zero-sum game in which wealth is transferred from the brave to the timid.

And yet, I think Whyte here simplifies and understates the case. He concentrates on the loss of 'danger money' to workers if the market price of the safer jobs falls. That, adding in workplace costs, might look like a zero-sum game, but a business is not a closed isolated system linking effectively infinite reservoirs of labour and capital.

The cost of complying with regulations is not transferred between internal costs and neatly compensated by changes in the labour market. The costs must be borne by customers and workers and capital in an uncertain proportion, and may force the business to shrink or restructure. And some of those costs are transfers of wealth to new players: regulators, inspectors, compliance officers, policemen, lawyers, prison officers, and the businesses that spring up to sell advice, form-filling guides and special stationery to all of the other new players and the businesses trying to minimise their attentions.

I think Whyte is mistaken when he asserts later in the same article that "left to his own devices a profit-seeking employer would get workplace safety exactly right". Employers are often irrationally optimistic—in the modern world they need to be to become employers. But that does not change the fact that the imposition of any new form of compliance on an industry makes all its existing workers, businesses and customers collectively financially worse off, though it may change the balance between them.

The quantity of inspection, regulation and statutory record-keeping is a measure of how much worse off, in financial terms, we are than otherwise we would be. State intervention is never costless, never self-financing, though differing people may end up paying. A would be regulator ought therefore to adduce non-material benefits for what he wants to do sufficient to convince the people affected. Unfortunately it is more likely, as Whyte points out, that his choices will reflect his own preferences. And worse, his preferences when someone else is paying.

(0) (2)

It is in the progressive state, while the society is advancing to the further acquisition, rather than when it has acquired its full complement of riches, that the condition of the labouring poor, of the great body of the people, seems to be the happiest the most comfortable. It is hard in the stationary, and miserable in the declining state.
- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations.

(1) (62)

The article by one of our contributors yesterday about Russian on-line music business allofmp3.com raises all manner of fascinating issue that I think should be pondered.

It has been argued by some of the commentariat that "whether you approve of the morality of the western music business or not, the goods belong to them and the artists" and thus as "one of the driving principles of this site [Samizdata.net] is respect for property rights, not glorifying those who steal, whether it be the state or someone else", presumably we should be more critical of this. These are reasonable positions to take and certainly I would not want anyone to think Samizdata has anything less than complete enthusiasm for private property rights. However I also think with regard to this (which is to say the sale of music on-line in a manner which is against the wishes of the businesses who own/created the music) the view that property rights are being violated is not correct.

In fact I would say that notion is exactly the wrong way around. Like it or not, music is now a commodity that is traded by weight in an international market and therefore the creator has only residual rights to how that commodity is subsequently resold. The model allofmp3 uses does indeed pay something to the creators of the music and refusing to acknowledge that things have changed and that recorded music is no long a physical good is pointless.

It may not be the business model originally envisaged by the music creators but that is the only viable one that remains to them. The market price for their product is now about 12¢ a track and if that (or their cut of that) is not enough for the music's creators, well I guess they should stop producing music and go find something else more profitable to do, just as if the price of diamonds falls too low, De Beers should feel free to stop digging them up in Namibia. What they (and De Beers) should not feel free to do is demand governments force the price of music (or diamonds) up by insisting they can only be sold a certain way via approved technologies at higher prices. One of the driving principles behind Samizdata.net is trying to develop theories about the world that reflect reality. I am willing to hear other theories but it seems to me that the market has spoken (loudly) and using the state to prop up a business model that technology has made nonsensical is not really serving the cause of liberty.

Another issue raised by the commentariat is that companies like allofmp3.com are all involved with the 'Russian Mafia'. As no evidence has been offered, clearly that is baseless supposition. However it does raise some other interesting issues: I would say even if it was true that allofmp3 is paying 'protection' to the Russian Mafia and/or using their political influence to shield their business model, the Russian Mafia fulfils certain roles that in other countries are filled by governments and lobbyists to much the same effect, thus I am not sure it makes a company like allofmp3 any different to a company (say Sony) using the force of the state to enforce its business model.

There is really not that much difference and if you do not believe me, I suggest you try telling the state you no longer wish to follow their regulations and wish to make your own arrangements for 'protection' and therefore intend to withhold a portion of your taxes... and then see what happens to you.

(5) (75)

I have been wandering through the fascinating nation of China of late, so I have not had much time to peruse the blogosphere - I guess this means that for a month I had a life. I was fortunate enough to spend a few days in the beautiful city of Lijiang in Yun'nan province. This mid-sized Chinese town is famed for its wonderfully restored 'old city', a cobbled and confusing maze of shops, traditional inns with gorgeous courtyards and a grid of small canals filled with luminous fish and gushing clean water. A beautiful place to while away a few days, but Lijiang is not really known for its nightlife. So on the evening of the 25th of December, I got trawling through some of the past articles on Samizdata. Reading through the comments section on this post, I noticed that an article I wrote early in 2005 got a mention. It was a pity I was not around a computer regularly, because a debate raged in the comments section that I would have very much liked to have been a part of. For all my appreciation of China, I am one of the few Sino sceptics.

I should explain. I am not a sceptic of the aspirations of the billions of Chinese people who sense greatness in the Chinese identity. After all, I'm mentioning a deeply rich culture backed up by a vast talent pool on the mainland and in the diaspora that has the capacity to change the world radically in the future. I am, however, deeply pessimistic about China in its current nominally Communist incarnation, for reasons I have outlined in a previous post. I will not go into specifics; if you're curious, please read my rationale here.

Some interesting developments have taken place between now and then, however. These merit further analysis. One or two of the commenters in the mentioned Samizdata piece stated that they were keeping abreast of banking developments in the Middle Kingdom. In 2002, Chinese officials admitted that 25% of the loans written by the state owned banks were non-performing. Standard and Poors and a number of others said it was closer to 50%, and possibly more. Within the space of four years, the Chinese administration has revised its estimation of the rate of non-performing loans down to an average of about 12%. How can this be done so fast? I'm not really sure. We are, of course, talking about the writing down or otherwise accounting for of many hundreds of billions of dollars of bad loans. I assume that it's due to the fact that most or all of the bad loans have been transferred to special "asset management" companies set up by the government. I suspect that the banks have been able to revise their non-performing loans (NPL) ratio down so quickly by performing a debt-to-equity swap with these holding companies. The article linked to immediately above believes the asset management companies have taken a chunk of the banks' loans and issued them with 10 year bonds in return.

This solution is clearly economic sophistry. At the end of the day, someone has to pay the tab - at some stage depositors are going to want their money. The equity in these holding companies is effectively (if not nominally for the time being) worthless - after all, their assets consist of a bunch of loans that will never be repaid. What is being done about the essentially state-owned industrial sector, which was - and most likely still is - the major recipient of these loans? There's a saying in China that goes something like "The mountains are high and the Emperor is far away". I have no doubt that this thinking pervades China's provincial administration and its state-owned industrial sector, and it explains the pervasive corruption that is, contrary to official publications, as rampant as ever. For every high-profile trial and execution of an apparently "senior" official on corruption charges, there are hundreds of thousands more who not only escape undetected, but are also politically untouchable into the bargain. Quite simply, the central government cannot be everywhere at once, and its reach is frequently limited by local powerbrokers. Consider this case in Guangdong, one of China's more prosperous provinces, where the central government could not exercise its will due to local political considerations, even though humiliating international media attention was beaming down. And who is to say that the central government is not as corrupt as its provincial counterparts? It is hardly unreasonable to say that corruption probes have a definite glass ceiling when it comes to the powers that be in Beijing.

I believe that the Chinese banking sector's dire straits constitute the gravest threat to global stability in the coming years. The Chinese government is always harping on about its "deepening" banking and state-owned industrial enterprise reforms, and this is a mantra is being repeated across the world. Unfortunately, the Chinese state is so opaque that it's impossible to verify the veracity of such claims, and the unrealistic numbers being thrown at us by the Communist party (like the drop of NPLs from 25% to 12% in less than five years) and the shonky juggling of bad debt from one insolvent bank to another woefully undercapitalised holding company do not inspire much confidence in the nature of the reforms. Frankly, I believe the banking sector is too far gone to reform without collapse. In international terms, the crisis in the Chinese banks and SOEs is an elephant that stands in the middle of the room, but everyone is either perceiving it as a mouse or trying to pass it off as a mouse. I believe the Australian government is in the latter category, as are a great many others around the world.

I speculate that governments like Australia's are acting as they are because they realise the Chinese state is very brittle and unlikely to withstand economic collapse. The massively stimulating US$50 billion or thereabouts annual injection of foreign direct investment is holding the Chinese state together for the time being. Thus, a number of states such as Australia have an interest in talking up Chinese economic reforms - and concealing the parlous nature of the Chinese economy - in the hope that investor confidence will not flag and the Chinese will trade and consume their way out of their problems. Our current economic health is due to huge demand in booming and resource-hungry China. Thus we see documents like this (pdf) that echo the "deepening reforms" mantra consistently spouted by the Chinese administration. Puff pieces like this create and sustain the irrational exuberance that swirls around the legend of the Chinese economic miracle, and inevitably amplifies economic pain when the collapse eventuates. The strategy of our governments may work, but it is an extremely high-risk gamble. The more investment in and commercial intertwinement with China increases, the more outsiders will suffer if the system unravels.

And perhaps the cracks are already becoming evident even to the man on the street. When I was in China in late 2005, ATMs were frequently out of order. I work in the banking sector in Australia, and when an ATM is out of order this nearly always means the machine has dispensed all its money. This was not a problem in late 2004 during my previous Chinese visit - ATM operations at that time were indiscernible to those in Australia. I am speculating here, because I'm not really an expert on this kind of money velocity issue, but perhaps the sudden patchiness of the ATM network is a sentinel of a solvency crisis.

And the collapse could come sooner than we think. In 2007, as per the agreement China entered into upon joining the WTO, it must open up its retail banking sector to foreign banks. This is a potential tripwire. Even if only a small number of Chinese are concerned about the health of their local banks (and thus their savings), when Citibank opens up next door the run on Chinese banks could easily spin out of control. I am assuming that the government is trying to spread the notion of confidence and stability in the retail banking sector. If the Chinese do not panic come 2007 or any time in the subsequent 20 years or so, the banks should be able to reduce their NPL rate to a "more manageable 5%". It wouldn't be the first time that people have left their money in a bank that is essentially insolvent because they believe the government will cover any losses incurred. This is a questionable assumption, however, and if I was Chinese I probably would not run the risk.

I am concerned by the consequences of a Chinese economic collapse, and these concerns reach far beyond any short to medium term economic pain. I fear a worldwide economic slump prompted by the collapse of China and its supposedly free market will provoke a popular backlash against globalisation and the liberal market reforms carried out in the 80s in the most successful economies of the West. Capitalism and liberalism will be blamed if people create a nexus between China's collapse, its market reforms and its intertwining with the greater world economy. There is no shortage of people who will quickly jump to the fallacious conclusion that the free market sunk China - those who protested in Hong Kong and other places would grab plenty of (misguided) ammunition from such a catastrophic event. Ask any one of those economic curmudgeons about post communist Russia's economy, and I will bet you penny to a pound that their standard response would be "capitalism failed Russia". This is about as sensible as saying that modesty failed Paris Hilton, for anyone who knows anything about post-Soviet "free market reforms" will know that they were in fact nothing of the sort. This type of thinking could very well gain traction because it makes sense prima facie. Policy reversals may follow and suddenly we're staring down the barrel of a neo-Keynesian revolution. Consider what the average person knows about China's economy. We're all told about China's free market reforms and its burgeoning capitalist class in the mainstream media - we're not told about the Chinese government's meddling in the economy and its mandating of compulsory totalitarian-style imposts on big private companies like internal "political cells", its retention of control over huge swathes of industry, its equity market (there is currently a ban on IPOs on Mainland bourses) which is stuffed with companies who are controlled by local governments and even the military, rather than shareholder, the board and a CEO. Most importantly, we're not told about the largely intractable problems with China's banking sector. Most people truly think China operates under a free market economic system. If the dog's breakfast that is China Inc fails with all the accompanying pain and fallout, there's a real danger that free market liberalism will be made the scapegoat internationally.

As I speculated above and in my previous article, Chinese economic collapse will probably preface political revolution. This is in itself an interesting, though disturbing proposition. What would post-communist China look like? Firstly, I should mention that a democratic revolution seems fanciful at best. There is no ANC-type shadow opposition waiting in the wings. The Party is the State, and the Party brooks no opposition. Here are what I consider to be the two most likely outcomes:

1) The military will overthrow the Party. If the banking sector collapses, so too will large chunks of the state-owned industrial sector that are afloat solely due to loans from the state-owned banks. Millions upon millions will be out of work - millions more will lose their pensions and benefits. Many tens - perhaps hundreds - of millions of people will pour onto the street to vigorously and violently protest their loss of savings and/or employment. In its death throes, the Communist Party will order a brutal military crackdown. Trouble is, a military is made up by people with aspirations, families, hopes etc. People who would have lost their savings, too. People whose parents, family and friends are suddenly out of work and without benefits. Most of the officers and soldiers will have no end of sympathy for their countrymen under such circumstances, and it's difficult to imagine the chain of command will survive under such conditions. The Communist top brass will lose control of the military, which will regroup under a new command. The old political order will be drawn and quartered, Mao will be evicted from his mausoleum and his portrait ripped down from the gate of the Forbidden City. There is no democratic tradition in China, however the country is steeped in a history of rule-by-decree. Expect this for many years to come. Perhaps the best outcome would be highly imperfect democratic elections in several years time.

2) The country breaks up along the lines of regional powerbrokers. Along with rule-by-decree, China also has a long history of warlordism and disunity. Due to the lack of any credible and widespread opposition movement in China, the possibility of a complete breakdown of central control is high if the Communists depart the scene and the military doesn't fill the vacuum. Hong Kong would almost certainly go its own way. Those provinces with large populations of non-Han citizens like Tibet and Xinjiang may declare their independence - perhaps bloodily ejecting the old order. Inner Mongolia may reunite with Mongolia. There is scope for large-scale dismemberment of the modern Chinese state. That left over will be fractured and ruled perhaps by the old regional party bosses reincarnated as warlords or whoever is able to wrest power from them and maintain it.

Some mention Taiwan as a wildcard that could be used as a distraction by the Central government. I think this unlikely. If the economy collapses, a war with Taiwan is not likely to distract anyone from their sudden poverty. Militarily, it seems unrealistic, too. The military will be stretched to breaking point in an attempt to reign in the chaos on the Mainland, so a massive invasion or attack on Taiwan looks unfeasible.

I truly hope that I am wrong about my bleak assessment, mainly due to the turmoil and potentially massive loss of life that would undoubtedly accompany such an event. I am also deeply concerned about the potential illiberal and protectionist measures that may be enacted in the West and elsewhere in the wake of a Chinese meltdown. The world has made a grave error of judgement in heavily backing an economy designed, constructed and administered by a group of ostensibly reformed Communists. This fact alone should have cooled the foreigners' ardour. As it stands, the potential for unprecedented economic losses from Chinese investments is enormous. I think we could be facing a very painful depression, which may very well be "cured" with a protectionist, welfarist New Deal-like solution. Scary times ahead.

(3) (11)

The Swedish city of Stockholm - in which I spent an enjoyable short stay last year - has introduced congestion charges, much like those which now operate in central London. The supposed aim (supposed being the key word) is to reduce car use and get people to use public transport. Public transport is said to be very good in Sweden and I found it to be so, though it comes with a heavy tax bill.

The congestion charge issue is an interesting one because on one level, free marketeers can see a lot of merit in the idea of treating use of a road just like any other commodity. However, in today's world, road tolls tend to be more of a revenue-raising device than part of a free market approach to transport. Roads are not built with the consent of other property owners, but mostly built at the behest of public authorities using compulsory purchase powers (what is called eminent domain in the United States). So the idea of road pricing, nice though it may sound in some sort of capitalist utopia, is in reality bound to operate in a monopolistic environment.

And as the British police have found, the C-Charge has brought certain unintended consequences. Not a great surprise.

(2) (21)

Putin is sending shivers through the world with his attempts to strong-arm the Ukraine back into the Kremlin's zone of influence and no doubt more and more column inches are going to be directed at this emerging crisis.

Yet it seems to me pretty obvious that that Russia, circa 2006, is almost hilariously weak to be throwing its weight around. The Russian economy is pathetic for a would-be imperial seat of power, running about half the size of India based on purchasing power. Its GDP per capita is about the same as such mighty global players as South Africa, Mexico and Trinidad. The antics of its kleptocratic and economically illiterate former KGB leadership makes the place less attractive to investors by the day. Frankly you would have to be crazy to put your money in Moscow. Even its military has repeatedly demonstrated that it is inept and corrupt in equal measure. All this talk of Russia's importance is vastly over-stated. In short, Russia needs to be treated with respect, but only the sort of respect you give a drunk with a knife as he staggers down the street.

The price of gas sold to the Ukraine is currently below market levels but the cackhanded way Russia has handled this makes it pretty obvious that markets are the last thing on Putin's mind. But perhaps he is to be applauded for massively strengthening the hand of pro-nuclear power advocates with his preposterous posturing. Even the turgid political class of western and eastern Europe can now have few illusions that it makes sense to rely on an unstable place with delusions of grandeur for their energy supplies. Methinks it might be time for those with some spare dosh to invest some of it in nuclear energy stocks.

(0) (20)

As 2005 draws to its close it is customary to make some predictions about the following year. I won't do so. The world's stock markets are ending the year in better shape than I would have expected a year before, notwithstanding the impact of higher oil prices and the devastating hurricanes that hit the U.S. gulf coast. What is interesting to me though is how the market in making predictions has continued to accelerate, spawining exotic derivatives connected even to the weather.

More than two years ago in the United States, some policymakers toyed with the idea of a predictions market to help figure out terrorist threats. The idea was killed off, partly, so it was argued, due to some terrible PR for the idea as well as a cowardly refusal to embrace controversial ideas. Lawrence Lessig takes a different view here.

The market in making predictions has, of course, been around for decades, if one thinks about the commodity futures markets such as the great wheat futures markets in Chicago, for instance. This Wikipedia entry I linked to shows just how broad the prediction market now goes, such as people taking bets on future scientific innovations, and so on. And these markets can be harnessed to garner useful knowledge about where certain things may be headed as well as fund valuable research.

That's my prediction, anyway.

(Wikipedia link fixed. Thanks to a commenter for pointing out the error).

(1) (10)

As I sit in the Coffee&Co café in Bratislava (a town I am rather fond of visiting) taking advantage of its offer of free wireless broadband (ah, no more OWLS for me)...

...I am yet again struck by what changes are being wrought by the internet, and what amazing possibilities it opens up.

Although I studied Russian many years ago when the Cold War was steering me in certain directions, that knowledge has long since been flushed by my brain. Yet the other night just before I left London for Slovakia, I was exchanging e-mails with a chap in Moscow, translating (or more accurately transliterating) my Latin script English into Cyrillic Russian via a free on-line system and similarly translating his replies into English.

The results were rather crude and took a bit of smarts to interpret but we were able to conclude our business most satisfactorily. It really did bring home to me that even though we are only at the very start of the communications revolution (and revolution it is), the ways the internet will change everything are incalculable. The social, scientific, economic and political implications are so far reaching that I am sure the world twenty years from now will be hard to recognise.

Perhaps that is just stating the obvious but for me at least it is the very fact I am now so blasé about all the things the internet makes possible for me that makes it is useful to sometimes stand back and marvel at what an astonishing thing it is. Of course just as we take electric light as a given and only appreciate it when the power goes out, I might be unusually appreciative because at the moment I do not have my usual 24/7 broadband access and there is nothing like withdrawal to make you value getting a 'fix'.

(1) (37)

The Chinese economy is set to be bigger in GDP terms than that of Britain by the end of this year, according to this report. Of course, raw statistics, such as aggregate economic numbers, do not tell the entire story, such as the degree of upward mobility, quality of life, extent of personal opportunity and so forth, but even so, China's growth remains for me the most compelling economic story of the past year. It is interesting to speculate just what the world economy would be like without the dynamo of China.

What remains to be seen, of course, is whether China's economic dynamism is eventually reflected in greater individual liberty. The jury is well and truly out on that question. Meanwhile, this article in Forbes is worth a look.

(0) (24)

Tom Peters, who presumably found it in this piece, reports:

This banner, in Chinese, hangs in each room of the Hua Xin Li Dress Co., Ltd., amidst the Rongcheng Industry Zone, 100 miles from Beijing:

"THE CUSTOMER IS GOD AND THE MARKET DECIDES EVERYTHING"

People say things like this from time to time, but they seldom mean them, and they never mean them when at all severely challenged

I mean, suppose you were to ring up the Hua Xin Li Dress Co., Ltd. and to say: "Hello, God speaking. I want you to design my daughter's wedding dress. It must be genuine silk, with genuine gold fiddly bits sewn into it, with miniature iPods for buttons, and must win numerous design awards. However, being God, I don't want to pay more than 50 pence. Got that did you? Fine. Tomorrow morning then. The wedding's tomorrow afternoon." I know, I know, God has no daughter, and if He did have a daughter, she would probably not get married. She would do altogether more dramatic things than that. Not my point. Which is: would the Hua Xin Li Dress Co., Ltd. knuckle under to such a demand? Would they obey God, the customer, you, and supply an expensive product at less than it costs them to produce it? I think not. They would surely respond instead with something more along the lines of: "Not quite our kind of job. If you want lots of cheap dresses to sell in your shop, maybe we can do business. Take a look at our website, and see if there is anything there that you like." God might not be satisfied with an answer like that, but you, a mere customer, would have to settle for that, or something like it.

Or to put all of the above another way, "the market" includes everyone, and everyone's desires and plans, consumers and producers. Customers are indeed sovereign, over themselves and what is rightfully theirs, but so are producers. Customers do not have to pay for things they do not want, and producers do not have to produce things they do not want to produce. The market is not some ghastly new tyrant who tells you what you must do, regardless of your rights or wishes. The market is not some hideous and only slightly nicer collective reincarnation of Chairman Mao. The market is the outcome of everyone's rights counting for something, and nobody's rights counting for everything.

So yes, the market does decide a lot of things, but the customer is not God.

This is an exaggeration for the sake of effect. The effect may, in a business sense, be good, but it is still an exaggeration, and that is putting mildly.

(0) (3)

In search of things to write about for the Globalisation Institute blog, I came across this report, itself about a report issued by the International Labour Organisation.

Global economic growth is increasingly failing to translate into new and better jobs to reduce poverty, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) said in a report Friday.

As a summary of what follows in this report of the report, this turns out to be severely misleading. Globalisation, according to what follows, is cranking out new jobs, and it is cranking out better jobs. True, it is not cranking out "new and better" jobs, all in one go, if by that is meant people in dirt poor countries now being able to leap in their thousands from having no jobs to having nice jobs, but that is hardly surprising.

Half of the world's workers still do not earn enough to lift themselves and their families above the $2 a day poverty line, the fourth edition of Key Indicators of the Labour Market (KILM), said.

There is still a lot of poverty in the world, in other words. So?

"The key message is that up to now better jobs and income for the world's workers has not been a priority in policy-making", ILO Director-General Juan Somavia said.

This is, at best, thoughtless bluster, and probably a flat lie. If he thought at all about this claim, Juan Somavia would realise that it is false, but he makes it anyway. I believe that he assumes that only the spending of tax money in explicitly labelled better job creation schemes would count as the intention to create better jobs. But I support globalisation, and write regular contributions for the Globalisation Institute blog, because I believe that globalisation is creating and will continue to create "better jobs and income for people" all over the world. This is a big part of why I do this. And I am definitely not the only one who thinks thus. Does Juan Somavia sincerely believe that all of us who enthusiastically support globalisation are indifferent to "better jobs and income for people"? Maybe he really is that ignorant, but I doubt it.

"Globalisation has so far not led to the creation of sufficient and sustainable decent work opportunities around the world. That has to change, and as many leaders have already said, we must make decent work a central objective of all economic and social policies."

Once again, bad policies to achieve "decent work" - making indecent work illegal, and making it obligatory to perpetuate all decent work ("sustainable") indefinitely, I assume - are confused with wanting lots of decent work. I do want lots of decent work for people, but believe that making indecent work illegal, and all firing of people from decent work illegal, is the absolute worst possible way to achieve that outcome. Making indecent work illegal hurts the very poorest people in a downright lethal way, by taking away even the crap jobs that they do now have and can now get, and it kicks away a vital rung in the ladder from no work to indecent work to decent work, which guarantees that the lethality will continue indefinitely. Charming. Demanding that all decent work be "sustainable" is to demand the impossible, and to guarantee idleness for all.

The other thing to say about that weasely paragraph is that all that it really says is that poverty is not being got rid of as fast as it might be, and as fast as would be nice. My interpretation of that truism being that globalisation is not working as fast as it might to make all that decent work (some of it perhaps even somewhat sustainable), all that "better jobs and income for people", and my conclusion is that globalisation should be intensified, and that Juan Somavia and his ilk should get out the way and let that happen.

Coming ahead of the WTO talks in Hong Kong next week, the report said that while in some areas of Asia, economic expansion is fostering solid growth in jobs and improving living conditions, Africa and parts of Latin America are seeing increasing numbers of people working in less favourable conditions, especially in the agricultural zone.

Globalisation is working well in some areas, and not so well in others. How could it be otherwise? Some parts of the world are better at it than others. Astonishing. Once again, this absolutely does not show that globalisation should cease, anywhere, still less everywhere.

For millions of workers, new jobs often provide barely enough income to lift them above the poverty line, or are far below any adequate measure of satisfying and productive work, the KILM said.

What a revelation. Lots of jobs in the world are very badly paid, and are crap. Who would have guessed it? But what are you and your mates saying should be done about this, Juan? You imply, but dare not spell out: less globalisation. I say: more.

The total number of working women and men living on less than $2 a day has not fallen over the past decade although at 1.38 billion it is a smaller share of global employment at just below 50 percent, a decline from 57 percent in 1994.

The best take on that being that the population of the world is increasing quite fast, and the number of not totally crap jobs (jobs above $2 a day) is also rising quite fast. The number of crap jobs, paying less than $2 per day is static, but presumably with much coming and going. A mixed picture, but more good news than bad there, I would say.

The report emphasises that in many developing economies the problem is mainly lack of decent and productive work opportunities rather than outright unemployment.

In other words, there are now lots of jobs out there, but lots of them are crap. Again, a mixed picture, with the good news being just as clear there as the bad. And I repeat, what do you guys think should be done to make the news better? I say: more globalisation. What do you say?

Women and men are working long and hard for very little because their only alternative is to have no income at all.

Indeed. Which is why making long and hard work illegal would be so lethal. Are you proposing that? If you are not proposing it, what are you proposing?

The report points out that in recent years there has been a weakening relationship between economic growth and employment growth, meaning that growth is not automatically translating into new jobs.

But there still is such a relationship, right? Or has it vanished, and do you think growth does not matter, and should be done away with?

The biennial study found that for every percentage point of additional GDP growth, total global employment grew by only 0.30 percentage points between 1999 and 2003, a drop from 0.38 percentage points between 1995 and 1999.

Which is precisely the kind of thing I would expect if I thought, as I do think, that globalisation, having created crap jobs for lots of people, is now switching to making crap jobs a bit less crap, rather than just thrashing out more equally crap jobs for people who already have crap jobs.

With employment growing between 0.5 and 0.9 percentage points for each additional percentage point of GDP growth, the most employment-intensive growth has taken place in the Middle East and in northern and sub-Saharan Africa.

And your problem is? Again, the creation of crap jobs is going on faster in some places – the poorest places, the places where there used to be no jobs at all, even crap jobs – than in the places where they already have crap jobs and would like nicer ones. This is just what I would expect of a world heading in exactly the right direction.

A review of other indicators, however, . . .

Oh to hell with it. Read the whole thing, if you can be bothered.

What this report of a report shows is that our side is winning the argument about globalisation and winning it handsomely. The Juan Somavias of this world hate globalisation, but since they do not say why, we can only guess. My strongly held opinion is that Juan Somavia hates globalisation because it takes jobs away from his members, in rather small numbers, and gives jobs to millions of people who are not his members, in very big numbers, and he hates that. Plus he probably hates capitalism. He dare not say this, because it is too nasty and too stupid, but he thinks it.

However, hating globalisation as he does, he still cannot find anything really bad to say about it. Poverty is widespread, and is not nice. Poor people have crap jobs, which they do because they prefer having crap jobs to starving. In some places, crap jobs are being created fast, in others the crap jobs they already have are being improved. Blah blah blah, etc. etc. etc.., moan moan moan.

At no time did Juan Somavia, or the writers of this report, judging by this report of their report, say that globalisation is worse than their proposed alternative, for they propose no such alternative. Had they done so, and if they did do so without the report of the report mentioning this, that alternative would presumably be (presumably was) non-globalisation. More or less big gobs of: tariff barriers, laws against importing and exporting, subsidies for existing industries, etc. etc.., the whole discredited panoply of command-and-control, national socialist, bugger-the-damn-foreigners economic policy which, the last time it was seriously imposed, caused the Great Depression.

Juan Somavia and his cohorts moan about globalisation in the same feeble and pointless way that others moan about the price of beer or the bulkiness of SLR cameras or the noisiness of washing machines. Should beer be done away with? Should big clunky SLR cameras be illegal? Should laws be passed demanding silence of washing machines? Well, no, but, but, but, … it's just … not good enough!!! Idiots. Others may still be saying semi-plausible but stupid things against globalisation, but Juan Somavia and his mates have lost this argument. But because of all their futile grumbling, and because of the prominence that their futile grumbling still gets in news reports by people who would prefer them not to have lost, this defeat may only be clear to the practised eye, but a defeat it nevertheless is. They have lost, and we are winning.

Winning a mere argument does not automatically translate itself into immediately getting the right policies and dumping the wrong ones. It may well be, for example, that this report that this report reports on contains many detailed and evil anti-globalisation proposals, which the report of the report dares not mention because these anti-globalisation proposals are just too obviously evil, but which are still there, and which for all manner of less obviously evil reasons may still be acted upon. People may have no good reasons for opposing globalisation, but they still have plenty of bad ones. Like: wanting to keep their own non-crap jobs and to hell with the world. And like: wanting capitalism - which they took against in their youth - to be mucked up, and then wanting capitalism to get the blame for the resulting ruin, instead of accepting it themselves. Overcoming such ignoble interests and intellectually corrupt positions is tough work. But, at any rate if this particular report of thi