China Deepens Liberalization of Capital Markets

I have pointed out that the ongoing tensions in the political spectrum in China may have been ideologically based.

Entrepreneurs in China may have grown enough political clout enough to challenge to the degenerative command and control political structure of the old China order.

And it seems as if the forces of decentralization seem to be getting the upper hand, as China undertakes further liberalization of their capital markets.

From the Bloomberg,

China accelerated the opening of its capital markets by more than doubling the amount foreigners can invest in stocks, bonds and bank deposits as the government shifts its growth model to domestic consumption from exports.

The China Securities Regulatory Commission increased the quotas for qualified foreign institutional investors to $80 billion from $30 billion, according to a statement on its website yesterday. Offshore investors will also be allowed to pump an extra 50 billion yuan ($7.95 billion) of local currency into the country, up from 20 billion yuan

China, the world’s second-biggest economy, has pledged this year to free up control of the yuan and liberalize interest rates as the government deepens reforms to revive growth and offset slowing exports and a cooling housing market. China needs to rely more on markets and the private sector as its export- oriented model isn’t sustainable, World Bank President Robert Zoellick said in February.

Here’s more

The regulator had granted a total of $24.6 billion in quotas to 129 overseas companies since the program first started in 2003 through the end of March. About 75 percent of assets were invested in Chinese stocks, with the rest in bonds and deposits, according to the statement.

The CSRC accelerated the program last month, granting a record $2.1 billion of quotas to 15 companies. It was more than the $1.9 billion in 2011 as a whole.

“The QFII program enhances our experience of monitoring and regulating cross-board investment and capital flows,” the CSRC said in the statement. “It is a positive experiment to further open up the market and achieve the yuan convertibility under the capital account.”

Premier Wen Jiabao is seeking to attract international investment as economic growth cools, prompting the benchmark Shanghai Composite Index to slump 24 percent in the past year. The country posted its largest trade deficit since at least 1989 in February as Europe’s sovereign-debt turmoil damped exports.

China needs to break a banking “monopoly” of a few big lenders that makes easy profits, Wen told private company executives in Fujian province yesterday, as cited by China National Radio.

Breaking up a privileged banking monopoly essentially transfers resources to the productive sector which should serve China well, as well as, serves as welcome and enriching news for Asia and the rest of the world.

And by liberalization of their capital markets, China will become more integrated with the world, and thus diffusing risks of brinkmanship geopolitics, or the risks of military confrontations.

Again such development adds evidence to my theory that the Spratlys tensions may have just been about political leverage or about helping promote indirectly the US arms sales.

Nevertheless, China has yet to face the harmful unintended consequences of her past and present Keynesian bubble policies.

However the long term is key, or far more important. The kind of reforms matters most.

And reforms that deepen economic freedom or laissez faire capitalism (away from state capitalism) in China and the attendant development of capital markets could likely mean that the rest of Asia may follow suit. The implication is that regional and domestic capital will less likely be recycled to the West, and instead would find more productive use at home or a ‘home bias’ for Asian investors.

Moreover, the crumbling welfare states of the west would mean more capital flows into the Asia as savings seek refuge from sustained policies of inflationism.

All these should accentuate my wealth convergence theory.

Of course, China’s strategy to liberalize her capital markets may also represent a move to challenge the US dollar standard.

Recently BRICs officials slammed US and Euro’s monetary “tsunami” policies and in the process has been contemplating to put up their version of a World Bank—joint development bank.

While these gripes have been valid, the latter’s action has little substance. What the other ex-China BRICs should to do is to mimic China’s path to rapidly liberalize their economy and their capital markets.

That’s because societal integration functions as a natural force when commercial activities or economic freedom intensifies.

As the great Ludwig von Mises wrote about the social effects of the division of labor,

Social cooperation means the division of labor.

The various members, the various individuals, in a society do not live their own lives without any reference or connection with other individuals. Thanks to the division of labor, we are connected with others by working for them and by receiving and consuming what others have produced for us. As a result, we have an exchange economy which consists in the cooperation of many individuals. Everybody produces, not only for himself alone, but for other people in the expectation that these other people will produce for him. This system requires acts of exchange.

The peaceful cooperation, the peaceful achievements of men, are effected on the market. Cooperation necessarily means that people are exchanging services and goods, the products of services. These exchanges bring about the market. The market is precisely the freedom of people to produce, to consume, to determine what has to be produced, in whatever quantity, in whatever quality, and to whomever these products are to go. Such a free system without a market is impossible; such a free system is the market.

Classical Liberalism: Towards A Less Violent World

Steve Pinker at the Wall Street Journal brings us a good news: there has been a declining trend of violence worldwide.

Mr. Pinker writes,

Believe it or not, the world of the past was much worse. Violence has been in decline for thousands of years, and today we may be living in the most peaceable era in the existence of our species.

The decline, to be sure, has not been smooth. It has not brought violence down to zero, and it is not guaranteed to continue. But it is a persistent historical development, visible on scales from millennia to years, from the waging of wars to the spanking of children.

Mr. Pinker attributes the “six major declines of violence” as the process of pacification, civilizing process, the Humanitarian Revolution, the Long Peace, the New Peace and the cascade of "rights revolutions.

He further notes that 3 peacemakers are responsible for the deepening trend towards greater peace.

1. the pacificist state

2. commerce

3. cosmopolitanism or the expansion of people's parochial little worlds through literacy, mobility, education, science, history, journalism and mass media.

In my earlier posts, I showed Hans Rosling in two videos explaining how people have become remarkably wealthier over the past 200 years, through the division of labor (how washing machine enhanced out lives).

Today, I quoted Matt Ridley saying that the successful evolution of the homo sapiens came from trade.

In short, liberalism has been the primary force responsible for bringing about civilization, wider access to information and knowledge, increasing wealth, vastly improved quality of life and charity, all of which has led to lesser appetite for violence.

In the words of the great Ludwig von Mises, (emphasis added)

Liberalism aims at a political constitution which safeguards the smooth working of social cooperation and the progressive intensification of mutual social relations. Its main objective is the avoidance of violent conflicts, of wars and revolutions that must disintegrate the social collaboration of men and throw people back into the primitive conditions of barbarism where all tribes and political bodies endlessly fought one another. Because the division of labor requires undisturbed peace, liberalism aims at the establishment of a system of government that is likely to preserve peace, viz., democracy.

Effective Disaster Recovery Programs are Based on Personal-Community Relationships

The success of disaster recovery programs has mostly been associated with personal relationships. (Sorry but it’s hardly about governments)

That’s the findings of NPR’s Shankar Vedantam. (hat tip: Prof Peter Boettke) [bold emphasis mine]

Aldrich's findings show that ambulances and firetrucks and government aid are not the principal ways most people survive during — and recover after — a disaster. His data suggest that while official help is useful — in clearing the water and getting the power back on in a place such as New Orleans after Katrina, for example — government interventions cannot bring neighborhoods back, and most emergency responders take far too long to get to the scene of a disaster to save many lives. Rather, it is the personal ties among members of a community that determine survival during a disaster, and recovery in its aftermath.

When Aldrich visited villages in India hit by the giant 2004 tsunami, he found that villagers who fared best after the disaster weren't those with the most money, or the most power. They were people who knew lots of other people — the most socially connected individuals. In other words, if you want to predict who will do well after a disaster, you look for faces that keep showing up at all the weddings and funerals.

Hayek’s local knowledge plays a key role. Again from the same NPR article (bold emphasis)

It's this passion for a local community and granular knowledge about who needs what that makes large-scale government interventions ineffective by comparison. It's even true when it comes to long-term recovery...

Governments and big nongovernmental organizations — which are keenly aware of the big picture — are often blind to neighborhood dynamics...

The problem isn't that experts are dumb. It's that communities are not the sum of their roads, schools and malls. They are the sum of their relationships.

Why does personal-community based relationship matter more than governments?

As I previously explained, (emphasis original)

Remember it is in the vested interest of the private sector to be charitable.

This is not only due to self esteem or social purposes but for sustaining the economic environment.

Think of it, if retail store ABC's customer base have been blighted by the recent mass flooding, where a massive dislocation- population loss through death or permanent relocation to other places- would translate to an economic loss for the store, then, it would be in the interest of owners of store ABC to "charitably" or voluntarily provide assistance of various kind to the neighborhood in order to prevent such dislocation from worsening, or as a consequence from indifference, risks economic losses.

Hence, such acts of charity is of mutual benefit.

Moreover, charity is the province of the marketplace. That's because markets produce and provides the goods and services required by society to operate on. Whereas government essentially don't produce goods or services but generates revenues by picking on somebody else's pocket.

With government, personal relationships are merely reduced to political interests.

With the marketplace, people see the benefit of social cooperation arising from social exchanges, which is fundamental to community building.

As the great Ludwig von Mises wrote, (bold emphasis added)

Within the frame of social cooperation there can emerge between members of society feelings of sympathy and friendship and a sense of belonging together. These feelings are the source of man's most delightful and most sublime experiences. They are the most precious adornment of life; they lift the animal species man to the heights of a really human existence. However, they are not, as some have asserted, the agents that have brought about social relationships. They are fruits of social cooperation, they thrive only within its frame; they did not precede the establishment of social relations and are not the seed from which they spring.

The fundamental facts that brought about cooperation, society, and civilization and transformed the animal man into a human being are the facts that work performed under the division of labor is more productive than isolated work and that man's reason is capable of recognizing this truth. But for these facts men would have forever remained deadly foes of one another, irreconcilable rivals in their endeavors to secure a portion of the scarce supply of means of sustenance provided by nature. Each man would have been forced to view all other men as his enemies; his craving for the satisfaction of his own appetites would have brought him into an implacable conflict with all his neighbors. No sympathy could possibly develop under such a state of affairs.

This is a truism which politicians and their media bootlickers always misrepresents.

Free Trade’s Influence on Culture

Even a culture of hate, bigotry and intolerance can be reformed by free trade.

From the Slate, (hat tip David Boaz)

If a century seems like a long time for a culture of racism to persist, consider the findings of a recent study on the persistence of anti-Semitism in Germany: Communities that murdered their Jewish populations during the 14^th-century Black Death pogroms were more likely to demonstrate a violent hatred of Jews nearly 600 years later. A culture of intolerance can be very persistent indeed.

Changing any aspect of culture—the norms, attitudes, and "unwritten rules" of a group—isn't easy. Beliefs are passed down from parent to child—positions on everything from childbearing to religious beliefs to risk-taking are transmitted across generations. Newcomers, meanwhile, may be attracted by the culture of their chosen home—Europeans longing for smaller government and lower taxes choose to move to the United States, for example, while Americans looking for Big Brotherly government move in the other direction. Once they arrive, these migrants tend to take on the attitudes of those around them—American-born Italians hold more "American" views with each subsequent generation.

"Good" cultural attitudes—like trust and tolerance—may thus be sustained across generations. But the flipside is that "bad" attitudes—mutual hatred and xenophobia—may also persist.

How trade changes culture... (bold highlights mine)

Not all cities like Würzburg were so unwavering in their anti-Semitism, however. Those with more of an outward orientation—in particular, cities that were a part of the Hanseatic League of Northern Europe, which brought outside influence via commerce and trade—showed almost no correlation between medieval and modern pogroms. The same was true for cities with high rates of population growth—with sufficient in-migration, the newcomers may have changed the attitudes of the local culture.

The simple point is that trade promotes social cooperation and has the power to change beliefs and culture. And the above is an anecdotal evidence of this.

Once again this validates the theories of the great Ludwig von Mises who wrote,

The market is that state of affairs under which I am giving something to you in order to receive something from you. I don't know how many of you have some inkling, or idea, of the Latin language, but in a Latin pronouncement 2,000 years ago already, there was the best description of the market — do ut des — I give in order that you should give. I contribute something in order that you should contribute something else. Out of this there developed human society, the market, peaceful cooperation of individuals. Social cooperation means the division of labor.

Despite The Disaster, Japan Reports Less Incidence Of Looting

Despite the horrible disaster, Professor William Easterly posits a very interesting observation and asks, why has there been no looting in Japan?

I quote Prof. Bill Easterly’s entire terse post... (bold highlight mine)

Amidst the heartbreaking devastation in Japan, many have noticed (especially this blog from the Telegraph) how much social solidarity — and little stealing — there has been. The Telegraph blogger Ed West notes vending machine owners giving out free drinks, in contrast to large-scale looting after Katrina.

Economists have been saying for a while that trust is a good candidate to be a major determinant of development. Think how much contract enforcement is critical to make trade and finance possible. Think how much easier contract enforcement is when nobody tries to cheat. This is supported by empirical studies correlating per capita income with a measure of trust, like that shown below, which is computed as …oh forget that, the current example is much more compelling.

Responding to tragedy, the Japanese have resources because they are rich, and it was their social solidarity that helped get them there.

While it may be argued that Japan’s homogenous society-a strong sense of group and national identity and little or no ethnic or racial diversity-could be attributed to such social cohesion, this idea of 'homogeneity' isn’t entirely true as such differences exists in Japan, like in all societies, as Harvard University professors Theodore Bestor (anthropology) and Helen Hardacre argues.

The economic development paradigm based on “Social solidarity that helped get them there” is perhaps what Henry Hazlitt explained in his The Foundations of Morality (quoted by Bettina Bien Greaves) as, (bold emphasis mine)

For each of us social cooperation is of course not the ultimate end but a means … But it is a means so central, so universal, so indispensable to the realization of practically all our other ends, that there is little harm in regarding it as an end in itself, and even in treating it as if it were the goal of ethics. In fact, precisely because none of us knows exactly what would give most satisfaction or happiness to others, the best test of our actions or rules of action is the extent to which they promote a social cooperation that best enables each of us to pursue his own ends.

Without social cooperation modern man could not achieve the barest fraction of the ends and satisfactions that he has achieved with it. The very subsistence of the immense majority of us depends upon it.

In short, a culture of (trust) social cooperation brought about by the interdependence of people founded on the division of labor, respect for private property and voluntary exchanges is what has mostly led to Japan's civil society that has greatly reduced the incidences of violence and theft even during bleak moments.