The Lost Decade: US Edition Part 2

As we earlier pointed in The Lost Decade: US Edition, stock market returns had been dismal, a decade since the new millennium.

Well, America's blemished decade hasn't just been confined to the performance of its stock markets, but likewise reflected on major economic indicators as magnificently shown in the chart below from the Washington Post.
According to the Washington Post, (bold emphasis mine)

``The U.S. economy has expanded at a healthy clip for most of the last 70 years, but by a wide range of measures, it stagnated in the first decade of the new millennium. Job growth was essentially zero, as modest job creation from 2003 to 2007 wasn't enough to make up for two recessions in the decade. Rises in the nation's economic output, as measured by gross domestic product, was weak. And household net worth, when adjusted for inflation, fell as stock prices stagnated, home prices declined in the second half of the decade and consumer debt skyrocketed."

The obvious lesson is that policies that promote short term prosperity through inflating asset bubbles negates the ephemeral yet unsustainable policy driven gains.

As Ludwig von Mises presciently warned in his magnum opus, ``The boom squanders through malinvestment scarce factors of production and reduces the stock available through overconsumption; its alleged blessings are paid for by impoverishment."

In short, bubble blowing policies simply don't work.

To add, the impact of the fast ballooning Federal regulations as seen in the Federal Register journal [as earlier discussed in Has Lack Of Regulation Caused This Crisis? Evidence Says No] should likewise be considered in the decomposition of the prevailing conditions of the US economy.

As previously quoted,``According to the Washington, DC-based Competitive Enterprise Institute’s 2009 edition of “Ten Thousand Commandments” by Clyde Crews, the cost of abiding federal regulations is estimated at $1.172 trillion in 2008 – 8% of the year’s GDP. This “regulation without representation,” says Crews, enables the funding of new federal initiatives through the compliance costs of expanded regulations, rather than hiking taxes or expanding the deficit."

In other words, numerous opportunity costs from the costs of compliance, costs of an expanded bureaucracy and the attendant corruption, the cost of the crowding out of private investments, the misdirection and wastage from inefficient use of resources and other forms 'unseen' distortions from the said regulations should also be reckoned with in appraising the economy.

To argue that America's decade have been emblematic of the frailties free markets is to engage in Ipse Dixitism or plain falsehood.

That's because it's easy to use the strawman to blame others, yet the worst is to admit one's mistakes. And passing the buck won't solve anything but agitate for more restriction of individual liberties and possibly provoke unnecessary conflicts.

Free Lunch Isn’t For Everyone, Ask Japan

Pundits have long debated about why and how Japan’s policies (e.g. ZIRP, Quantitative Easing, Infrastructure spending, etc…) have failed to “reinflate” its economy following the bubble bust in 1990s, which eventually led to “the lost decade”.

Naturally there won’t be one single or simplified answer to a complex problem, although it is just our thought that this article just may have provided one important clue.

This excerpt from Washington Post’s article entitled “Free Money? In Japan, Most Say They Will Pass”.

All highlight mine.

Japan is having trouble giving away a free lunch.

To perk up the fast-shrinking economy, Prime Minister Taro Aso announced late last month that his government would give everybody money. A family of four would get $600.

Then the trouble -- and the confusion -- started.

Should rich people get it? How rich is rich? Who decides who is rich, and how long will it take to decide?

Aso, who came to power in September and within a year must call a national election that polls show he may well lose, declared initially that everyone, rich and poor, would get the money.

Then Kaoru Yosano, the minister for economic and fiscal policy, said that perhaps the rich should not get any money. He noted that such a giveaway could be viewed as an unseemly attempt by the prime minister and his ruling Liberal Democratic Party to curry favor with voters.

Aso found that to be a reasonable argument and said an income cap would probably be a good idea.

Then his finance minister, Shoichi Nakagawa, said that figuring out who is too rich for a handout would create an excessive workload for local governments. He also said it would delay the distribution of money, which Aso wants to get into people's pockets by March.

Aso found this, too, to be a reasonable argument and said on Monday, "No income cap will be implemented."

Now it turns out that voters do not want the money.

Sixty-three percent said they think that a handout is unnecessary, according to a poll published Wednesday in the Asahi, a national daily. Every age group opposes it, as does a majority in Aso's ruling party, the poll found.

One answer is C-U-L-T-U-R-E.

The Japanese are such fanatical savers that they are the reigning titlist as the world’s biggest savers, which according to aol.com, ``boast nearly $15 trillion in domestic household financial assets, about half of which sit in bank deposit accounts.”

So with so much money stashed in the banks, obviously there isn’t any urgency for most of the Japanese for free lunches in the same way most of the world drools over such opportunity.

The other dilemma clearly emphasized by the article is how noble intentions dreamt or conjured up by regulators and egalitarians get cluttered with the argument over classifications, conflict of interest and the unintended consequence of bureaucratic nightmare.

The morals of the story:

Since everyone would have different set of values, you simply can’t please everybody.

There is no single "regulatory" solution to the problems of mankind.

Short Lessons from the Fall of Japan

Interesting article from Fool.com’s Bill Mann on “Falling Like Japan”, here is an excerpt (all highlights mine),

``In the aftermath of the bubble, Japan's government rushed in to prop up its banking system, which was teetering under the weight of non-performing loans. Rather than letting businesses fail, this has had the effect of propping them up to continue operating. To this day the scope of the problem is still not known.

``Without this information, investors both in Japan and outside have made a logical conclusion -- to take their investment dollars elsewhere. Japan's industrial sector has failed to meet its cost of capital over the last 20 years, in large measure because the government has allowed capital-destroying companies to continue to operate. Had these companies been allowed to fail, Japan long ago could have flushed out its system and gotten back on the road to economic health. In the name of protecting jobs, Japan's economy has continued to sputter, punctuated by spectacular bankruptcies in cases where the facade could not hold up. The cost of propping them up has been much, much more economic pain. Japanese call the long economic downturn ushinawareta jūnen, the lost decade.”

My humble two cents:

One, affected companies or industries which seek shelter from the government are likely to underperform simply because like in the Japan experience, productive capital won’t be allowed to flow where it is needed.

Thus, the unproductive use of capital in shoring up those affected by today's crisis will likely reduce any industry or company’s capacity to hurdle its cost of capital.

Two, since capital always looks for net positive returns then obviously capital flows are likely to go into sectors that aren't hampered by cost of capital issues from government intervention.

This probably means a NEW market leadership (sectoral) and or money flows OUTSIDE the US or from markets/economies heavily impacted by the crisis.