Does Unemployment Cause Deflation?

I was apprised by a dear friend that in a part of the US, call center jobs have been migrating to the Philippines. Such phenomenon he sees as having a “deflationary” impact on the US economy. 

Such popular reasoning is fairly simple. Lack of jobs equals a fall in aggregate demand. Falling demand leads to falling prices. Falling prices result to more job losses. Thus the circular reasoning translates to an endless loop: a deflationary spiral.

The bottom line from such aggregate demand framework is that unemployment causes price deflation.

Of course, the alternative implication is that the Philippines, like China through alleged currency manipulation, has been “stealing jobs” from Americans.

And equally this means that for them, the optimal political solution is to inflate or apply protectionist measures or apply both against countries like the Philippines or China.

Have job losses or unemployment resulted to price deflation as alleged?

Here is a list of the largest world unemployment rates from Wikipedia.org.

Since there are many nations with over 10% in unemployment rates, I will only reckon with nations with over 50% in unemployment rates

Nauru 90%

Vanatu 78.21%

Turkmenistan 70%

Zimbabwe 70%

Mozambique 60%

Djibouti 59%

Given the huge unemployment rate, then we assume that these countries, according to the aggregate demand theory, to be in a deflationary depression.

Note: there is no price inflation figure for Nauru

Vanatu’s inflation rate (chart from Index Mundi) Positive inflation.

Turkmenistan price inflation rate (chart from tradingeconomics.com) Positive inflation.

Zimbabwe’s post hyperinflation CPI (chart from tradingeconomics.com) Positive inflation.

Mozambique’s inflation rate (chart from tradingeconomics.com) Positive inflation.

Djibouti’s inflation rate (chart from tradingeconomics.com) Positive inflation.

Surprise, ALL 5 nations with the largest unemployment have ZERO account of price deflation!

So what’s wrong with such a claim or theory?

The fundamental premises are essentially misplaced:

-People all think the same or people don’t think at all. People mechanically and homogeneously follow the circular reasoning that falling demand leads to falling prices in a perpetual feedback loop to an eternal hellhole.

-People’s don't have marginal utility. All people share the same set of values, priorities, incentives and time preferences. 

-People are not human. People simply stop eating, drinking or clothing or finding shelter under a deflationary spiral. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs have been jettisoned out of the window. People are caught in a stasis, freeze like a deer caught in headlights, where demand totally evaporates.

-When people don’t think or when people think the same or when people stop being people then obviously the demand and supply curve, the law of scarcity and opportunity costs becomes inapplicable or ceases to exists.

-Capital has been nonexistent to people who act or behave in aggregates.

-Inflation is NOT a monetary phenomenon so does the consequent deflation.

In the real world, economies are vastly complex, with millions of spontaneously operating parts such that wages represents only part of the myriad of factors that influence the economic environment.

Other real factors are equally or even more important, e.g. proximity to markets, size and categories of markets, state of basic infrastructure, access to credit, connectivity, technology and labor, quality of labor force, comparative advantage/s, state of legal, political and regulatory institutions and environment, tax levels, state of economic freedom, depth of capital markets, monetary regime and much more.

Most important is property rights. When property rights are not secure, no one will dare to invest no matter the relative lower, if not the lowest costs, in terms of labor wages. Who invests in North Korea or in the above 5 nations with the largest unemployment (presumably the cheapest labor force) in the world where one's capital are likely to be arbitrarily seized by the incumbent authorities?

These are real factors that can't be seen as having neutral effects on people's incentives or which operates on a vacuum. 

How about the solution where government must step in to provide jobs, by inflation or protection? 

Well government, of course, comprises of people too.

Under the aggregate demand framework, the political class have been glorified as representing “superior” set of people in terms of knowledge and virtues, relative to the market which is seen as inferior non-political people, that lays ground for interventions on so-called “market failures”.

Such is an unalloyed myth. If the romance on politics is true, then inflation or deflation won’t exist. There won’t anything known as economics.

The reality is that inflation and protectionism represents two sides of the same coin: the political economy of destruction.

As the great Ludwig von Mises explained (bold mine)

By destroying the basis of reckoning values—the possibility of calculating with a general denominator of prices which, for short periods at least, does not fluctuate too wildly—inflation shakes the system of calculations in terms of money, the most important aid to economic action which thought has evolved. As long as it is kept within certain limits, inflation is an excellent psychological support of an economic policy which lives on the consumption of capital. In the usual, and indeed the only possible, kind of capitalist book-keeping, inflation creates an illusion of profit where in reality there are only losses. As people start off from the nominal sum of the erstwhile cost price, they allow too little for depreciation on fixed capital, and since they take into account the apparent increases in the value of circulating capital as if these increases were real increases of value, they show profits where accounts in a stable currency would reveal losses. This is certainly not a means of abolishing the effects of an evil etatistic policy, of war and revolution; it merely hides them from the eye of the multitude. People talk of profits, they think they are living in a period of economic progress, and finally they even applaud the wise policy which apparently makes everyone richer.

But the moment inflation passes a certain point the picture changes. It begins to promote destructionism, not merely indirectly by disguising the effects of destructionist policy; it becomes in itself one of the most important tools of destructionism. It leads everyone to consume his fortune; it discourages saving, and thereby prevents the formation of fresh capital. It encourages the confiscatory policy of taxation. The depreciation of money raises the monetary expression of commodity values and this, reacting on the book values of changes in capital—which the tax administration regards as increases in income and capital—becomes a new legal justification for confiscation of part of the owners' fortune. References to the apparently high profits which entrepreneurs can be shown to be making, on a calculation assuming that the value of money remains stable, offers an excellent means of stimulating popular frenzy. In this way, one can easily represent all entrepreneurial activity as profiteering, swindling, and parasitism. And the chaos which follows, the money system collapsing under the avalanche of continuous issues of additional notes, gives a favourable opportunity for completing the work of destruction.

The bottom line is that previous interventionists policies, e.g. policy induced boom bust cycles, regulatory mandates, entitlements etc..., have resulted to such lack of competitiveness which neo-mercantilists try to shift the blame onto the others. Yet they are asking for more of the same thing that led to this or they seek doing the same thing over and over again but are expecting different results.

The economics of aggregatism, thus, has mostly been about pretentious or pseudo-economics wrapped in populist anti-market politics constructed from heuristics, political religion and cognitive biases, or might I say, a grand deflation in logic.

The Political Pretense called Currency War

A geneticist recently claimed that human intelligence has been on a gradual decline due to the extensive use of fluorides in the water supply, pesticides, high fructose corn syrup and processed foods. 

I have a different opinion. If true, then I would say that the main culprit has been the public’s worship of state, from which untruths, as conveyed by media, politicians and their apologists, envelops its essence. Blind belief in political falsehood makes people lose their intellectual bearings.

Just recently the Japanese government has been blamed by her counterparts as Russia, South Korea and the Bundesbank for inciting, if not escalating, a “currency war” via open ended bond buying program to devalue the yen. The implication is that Japan’s “currency manipulation” polices signifies as “beggar thy neighbor” policies that have been implicitly designed to hurt other nations.

A “currency war” is another term for competitive devaluation which according to Wikipedia.org represents “a condition in international affairs where countries compete against each other to achieve a relatively low exchange rate for their own currency” where “states engaging in competitive devaluation since 2010 have used a mix of policy tools, including direct government intervention, the imposition of capital controls, and, indirectly, quantitative easing.”

Yet one would notice that the balance sheets of major central banks, all of which have been skyrocketing, and which allegedly reflects on “direct government intervention, the imposition of capital controls, and, indirectly, quantitative easing”, currency wars in the light of competitive devaluation has been an ongoing event since 2008 as shown in the chart above. 

In short, neither has this been an exclusive Japan event nor has been a fresh development.

And this has also not been limited to major central banks but extends all the way to emerging Asia and to China as well, the Philippines included. (chart from the Bank of International Settlements)

In short, global central banks have been in a state of “currency war” or “currency manipulation” since 2008.

This article is not meant to absolve Japan's policies but to expose on what seems as political canard.

In reality “currency war” or “currency manipulation” or competitive devaluation is simply nothing more than inflationism. The great Ludwig von Mises defined inflation as

if the quantity of money is increased, the purchasing power of the monetary unit decreases, and the quantity of goods that can be obtained for one unit of this money decreases also.

While there may be technical difference on what a central bank buys to expand her assets through a corresponding expansion of currency liabilities, the fact is that “quantity of money is increased”.

The assets of Swiss National Bank have mostly been in foreign currency reserves (as of November 2012) while the Bank of Japan has mostly been in JGBs (as of September 30, 2012). Table from (SNBCHF.com)

American neo-mercantilists have labeled “currency manipulation” on nations, who allegedly use of accumulation of currency reserves as exchange rate policy, from which they call their government to impose protectionist countermeasures such as China.

As I wrote previously this represents naïve thinking.

While the technical reasons why countries accumulate foreign currency reserves are mainly for self-insurance (for instance Asia reserve accumulation has partly been due to the stigma of the Asian Crisis) and from trade, financial and capital flows (NY FED), the real “behind the curtain” reason has been the US dollar standard system. Such system allows for a “deficit without tears”, or unsustainable free lunch by the use of the US dollar seingorage to acquire global goods and services that results to seemingly perpetual trade deficits. 

Deficit without tears, as the late French economist and adviser to the French government Jacques Rueff wrote in the Monetary Sin of the West (p.23), “allowed the countries in possession of a currency benefiting from international prestige to give without taking, to lend without borrowing, and to acquire without paying.” 

And this has been the main reason for America’s “financialization” and the recurring policy induced boom bust cycles around the world, which essentially has been transmitted via the Triffin dilemma or “the conflict of interest between short-term domestic and long-term international economic objectives” of an international reserve currency

Thus blaming China or even the Philippines for reserve currency accumulation seems plain preposterous and only represents political lobotomy.

Currency war or currency manipulations serves no less than to “cloak the plea for inflation and credit expansion in the sophisticated terminology of mathematical economics”, to quote anew the great professor Ludwig von Mises from which “to advance plausible arguments in favor of the policy of reckless spending; they simply could not find a case against the economic theorem concerning institutional unemployment.”

And may I add that pretentious public censures account for as ploys to divert public’s attention or serve as smokescreens from homegrown government “inflationist” policy failures.

Since major central bank represented by the G-20 knows that by labeling Japan as instigator of currency wars would be similar to the proverbial pot calling the kettle black, they went about fudging with semantics to exonerate Japan’s political authorities.

From Bloomberg,

Global finance chiefs signaled Japan has scope to keep stimulating its stagnant economy as long as policy makers cease publicly advocating a sliding yen.

The message was delivered at weekend talks of finance ministers and central bankers from the Group of 20 in Moscow. While they pledged not “to target our exchange rates for competitive purposes,” Japan wasn’t singled out for allowing the yen to drop and won backing for its push to beat deflation.

This doesn’t look like a “war”, does it?

At the end of the day, currency war, or perhaps, stealth collaborative currency devaluation (perhaps a modern day Plaza-Louvre Accord) maneuvering means that central bank shindig will go on; publicity sensationalism notwithstanding.

Sri Lanka Joins Global Money Printing Contest

I have been saying that global central banks have embraced Bernanke’s approach as a newfound doctrine (here and here) such that ALL central banks have practically been engaged in money printing in one form or another.

Sri Lanka reportedly joins the money printing bandwagon via forex intervention.

From Lanka Business online 

Sri Lanka's central bank has sterilized a foreign exchange sale injecting 8.0 billion rupees in one-month money into the banking system, ending several weeks of monetary policy that has been favourable of a stronger exchange rate.

On Friday the central bank printed 8.0 billion rupees for one month at 9.81 percent, slightly above the 9.75 percent reverse repo rate at which overnight liquidity is injected into the banking system for 31 days.

Until Thursday the monetary authority was injecting cash overnight in to the banking system, following a large liquidity shortage that occurred in late September. In a pegged exchange rate system, a large liquidity shortage occurs through an unsterilized foreign exchange sale.

While overnight rupee injections also generate demand in the economy, it can be less damaging than longer term cash injections, since bank managers will not try to grow the loan book while funding the balance sheet with overnight liquidity.

Instead they will try to cover the positions by curbing loan growth or raising more deposits or both.

But central bank liquidity injections through term Treasury bill purchases allow banks to focus on loans again, preventing the adjustment of the economy to the outflow of money through the central bank foreign exchange sales and triggering balance of payments trouble.

Here is the 6 month chart of Sri Lanka’s Colombo Stock Exchange

Central banks worldwide have been blowing bubbles.

Currency Manipulation and the Politics of Neo-Mercantilism

At the local stock market forum, the Stock Market Pilipinas I had been asked to comment about the currency manipulation charges hurled against China.

For starters, as per Wikipedia’s definition of currency intervention, otherwise known as exchange rate intervention or foreign exchange market intervention, is the purchase or the sale of the currency on the exchange market by the fiscal authority or the monetary authority, in order to influence the value of the domestic currency. (bold emphasis mine)

In brief, the employment of currency/foreign exchange/exchange rate interventions implies that both monetary and fiscal authorities of ALL nations are currency manipulators.

(chart from Bloomberg)

As evidence, considering that international reserves assets (excluding gold) are at record highs mainly through the expansion of central bank balance sheets (via unsterilized interventions) these means that all central banks have been manipulating their respective currencies.

The growth of central bank balance sheets includes Asia and the Philippines. (Bank of International Settlements)

Such concerted balance sheet expansions has also been reflected on the state of money supply growth. (chart from Mao Money, Mao Problems)

Fund manager David R. Kotok of Cumberland Advisors has a good narrative of why the growing concerns over dollar debasement are valid.

Mr. Kotok writes, (bold emphasis mine)

The dollar maintains its reserve currency status because it is the least worst of the major four currencies – the US dollar, the British pound, the Japanese yen, and the euro.  All four of these currencies are now suffering the effects of a stimulative, expansive, and QE-oriented monetary policy.

We must now add the Swiss franc as a major currency, since Switzerland and its central bank are embarked on a policy course of fixing the exchange rate between the franc and the euro at 1.2 to 1.  Hence the Swiss National Bank becomes an extension of the European Central Bank, and therefore its monetary policy is necessarily linked to that of the eurozone… 

When you add up these currencies and the others that are linked to them, you conclude that about 80% of the world’s capital markets are tied to one of them.  All of the major four are in QE of one sort or another.  All four are maintaining a shorter-term interest rate near zero, which explains the reduction of volatility in the shorter-term rate structure.  If all currencies yield about the same and are likely to continue doing so for a while, it becomes hard to distinguish a relative value among them; hence, volatility falls.

The other currencies of the world may have value-adding characteristics.  We see that in places like Canada, Sweden, and New Zealand.  But the capital-market size of those currencies, or even of a basket of them, is not sufficient to replace the dollar as the major reserve currency.  Thus the dollar wins as the least worst of the big guys.

Fear of dollar debasement is, however, well-founded.  The United States continues to run federal budget deficits at high percentages of GDP.  The US central bank has a policy of QE and has committed itself to an extension of the period during which it will preserve this expansive policy.  That timeframe is now estimated to be at least three years.  The central bank has specifically said it wants more inflation.  The real interest rates in US-dollar-denominated Treasury debt are negative.  This is a recipe for a weaker dollar.  The only reason that the dollar is not much weaker is that the other major central banks are engaged in similar policies.

Given the high concentration of exposure by the world’s banking system on these four major international reserves currencies (US dollar, British pound, Japanese Yen, and the euro), this means that policies of ancillary central banks has to adjust in accordance to the policies of these major international reserve currencies.

In short, policies by the US mostly dominate on the policies of global central banks. Alternatively this suggest that the US has been the world’s biggest 'currency manipulator'.

While it is also true that some peripheral currencies has differentiating factors as pointed above, the point is that these currencies don’t have enough market depth to replace the incumbent international reserve currencies.

As caveat, such premises remain conditional on the absence of a currency crisis. Abrupt changes to the current setting should be expected if or once a currency crisis should occur.

Yet the fundamental issue is to understand the role of role of central banks. As Mises Institute founder Llewellyn Rockwell Jr. recently wrote, (lewRockwell.com):

First, they serve as lenders of last resort, which in practice means bailouts for the big financial firms. Second, they coordinate the inflation of the money supply by establishing a uniform rate at which the banks inflate, thereby making the fractional-reserve banking system less unstable and more consistently profitable than it would be without a central bank (which, by the way, is why the banks themselves always clamor for a central bank). Finally, they allow governments, via inflation, to finance their operations far more cheaply and surreptitiously than they otherwise could.

The bottom line is that currency manipulation, through inflationism, is the essence of the paper money legal tender based central banking.

So what’s the hullabaloo over China as "currency manipulator"?

Well, “currency manipulation” has been no less than a popular sloganeering of “us against them” politics meant to attain political goals.

Such political goal has been subtly designed for the protection of the privileged business interests allied with the political class through trade restrictions or through the transformation “of the economy from roughly laissez-faire to centralized, coordinated statism” as the great dean of Austrian school of economics Murray N. Rothbard pointed out.

This is called neo-mercantilism.

In the 80s, rising Japan had been painted as a threat to American economic standings, such that hate and envy based politics echoed the call for neo-mercantilist protectionism, again from Professor Rothbard,

Protectionism, often refuted and seemingly abandoned, has returned, and with a vengeance. The Japanese, who bounced back from grievous losses in World War II to astound the world by producing innovative, high-quality products at low prices, are serving as the convenient butt of protectionist propaganda. Memories of wartime myths prove a heady brew, as protectionists warn about this new "Japanese imperialism," even "worse than Pearl Harbor." This "imperialism" turns out to consist of selling Americans wonderful TV sets, autos, microchips, etc., at prices more than competitive with American firms.

Is this "flood" of Japanese products really a menace, to be combated by the U.S. government? Or is the new Japan a godsend to American consumers? In taking our stand on this issue, we should recognize that all government action means coercion, so that calling upon the U.S. government to intervene means urging it to use force and violence to restrain peaceful trade. One trusts that the protectionists are not willing to pursue their logic of force to the ultimate in the form of another Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

With Japan suffering from a humongous bubble bust that has led to a lost decade, today such political bogeyman has shifted to China.

The mainstream (mostly representing captured interests) has used all sorts of highly flawed and deceptive technically based assumptions and theories as cheap labor theory, cheap currencies, global savings glut, global imbalances and others to divert or camouflage the public’s attention from the unintended consequences from serial interventionist domestic policies and bubble monetary policies by riling up or conjuring emotive nationalist or xenophobic sentiment.

Gullible public opinion are easily swayed due to either the dearth of economic understanding or because they are blinded from the obsession to politics.

As the great Ludwig von Mises pointed out (OMNIPOTENT GOVERNMENT p.183)

People favor discrimination and privileges because they do not realize that they themselves are consumers and as such must foot the bill. In the case of protectionism, for example, they believe that only the foreigners against whom the import duties discriminate are hurt. It is true the foreigners are hurt, but not they alone: the consumers who must pay higher prices suffer with them.

And part of that reality has not entirely been about achieving some dubious trading objectives but to expand credit, again for political goals.

Again the Professor von Mises, (Human Action)

While the size of the credit expansion that private banks and bankers are able to engineer on an unhampered market is strictly limited, the governments aim at the greatest possible amount of credit expansion. Credit expansion is the governments' foremost tool in their struggle against the market economy. In their hands it is the magic wand designed to conjure away the scarcity of capital goods, to lower the rate of interest or to abolish it altogether, to finance lavish government spending, to expropriate the capitalists, to contrive everlasting booms, and to make everybody prosperous.

The politics of neomercantilism exploits economic patsies and the politically blind in the name of nationalism for the benefit of political class, vested interest groups and or their cronies at the expense of society.

Aftermath of Boom Bust Policies: US Family Net Worth Fell Nearly 40% Between 2007-2010

From the Wall Street Journal Blog (bold emphasis mine)

Families’ median net worth fell almost 40% between 2007 and 2010, down to levels last seen in 1992, the Federal Reserve said in a report Monday.

As the U.S. economy roiled for three tumultuous years, families saw corresponding drops in their income and net wealth, according to the Fed’s Survey of Consumer Finances, a detailed snapshot of household finances conducted every three years.

Median net worth of families fell to $77,300 in 2010 from $126,400 in 2007, a drop of 38.8%–the largest drop since the current survey began in 1989, Fed economists said Monday. Net worth represents the difference between a family’s gross assets and its liabilities. Average net worth fell 14.7% during the same three-year period.

Much of that drop was driven by the housing market’s collapse. Families whose assets were tied up more in housing saw their net worth decline by more. Among families that owned homes, their median home equity declined to $75,000 in 2010, down from $110,000 three years earlier.

Between 2007 and 2010, incomes also dropped sharply. In 2010, median family income fell to $45,800 from $49,600 in 2007, a drop of 7.7%. Average income fell 11.1% to $78,500, down from $88,300. That was a departure from earlier in the decade. During the preceding three years, median income had been constant, while the mean had climbed 8.5%.

Family incomes also dropped the most in regions of the country hardest hit by the housing market tumble. Median family income in the West and South decreased substantially, while those in the Northeast and Midwest saw little change.

This serves as evidence of how interest rate policies (zero bound rates) which attempts to induce a “permanent quasi boom” essentially impoverishes a society.

The market’s fierce backlash from Keynesian snake oil policies, serves as another validation or the realization of admonitions from the great Ludwig von Mises.

He who wants to "abolish" interest will have to induce people to value an apple available in a hundred years no less than a present apple. What can be abolished by laws and decrees is merely the right of the capitalists to receive interest. But such decrees would bring about capital consumption and would very soon throw mankind back into the original state of natural poverty.

Capital consumption indeed.

Postscript:

Policymakers instead has been shifting the blame on China than accepting their mistakes and has further pursued similar set of policies. This means we should expect the same results overtime. Yet part of the imbalances caused by the boom phase of bubble cycles has been to overvalue a currency.

As a side note, politicians and mercantilists have long blamed China for alleged currency manipulation. The US Treasury recently avoided a direct confrontation by refusing to label China as one. That's because the US Treasury has become beholden to China, as evidenced by the privilege of direct access. This represents the another case where the mythical pot calls the kettle black.