Global Stock Market Update: Advancers Still Dominate

Here is an update of the performances of world stock markets courtesy of Bespoke Invest.

From Bespoke

Just over 30% of the countries shown are down so far this year. Bangladesh has been the worst performer in 2011 with a decline of 23.69% year to date. The country was the 2nd best performer in 2010 behind Sri Lanka with a gain of 82.79%. With its uprising this month, Tunisia is the only other country down more than 10%.

Of the G7 countries, Italy ranks first, followed by France (+6%), the US (+2.57%), Germany (+2.22%), and Japan (+1.14%). The UK ranks second to last of the G7 countries with a gain of 0.74%. Canada ranks dead last and is the only G7 country that is down year to date (-0.69%).

Looking at the BRICs, China continues to struggle with a year-to-date decline of 4% after falling 14.31% in 2010. India is also struggling with a decline of 6.62%, but unlike China, India saw nice gains last year. Russia is currently the top performing BRIC country with a year-to-date gain of 5.39%, and Brazil is just barely in the black at +0.12%.

My comments

Trading Places. Many of last year’s top performers are at the bottom and that includes the Philippines. Whereas many of last year’s laggards are on the upper echelon of the winner’s bracket (Italy, Spain, Greece).

Tailwind. Some of last year’s topnotchers continue to sizzle (Sri Lanka, Ukraine, Estonia), while some of last year’s tailenders continue to trail (Bermuda, Dubai, China).

Definitely NOT A Bear Market. With 30% of global equities down, the obverse side is that 70% of global equities are up. In short, gainers still dominate.

Developed world outpaces major Emerging Markets. It’s yet too early to say that this will be the central trend for the year. Though I wouldn’t bet on it.

Web Revolution. Bespoke links to a New York Times site which shows of the video that triggered the People’s Power revolution in Tunisia. The link here. It’s amazing to see how political events are being shaped by the web.

The Next Green Revolution?

Is the next green revolution upon us?

The non profit organization Philippine based International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) together with a China based institution has come up with a new variety of rice that is said to be “more robust, high yielding, and disease-resistant, yet thrive with less water, fertilizer, and pesticide”

Picture From IRRI

From Yale Global,

The world appears to be on the threshold of another green revolution in rice production as a result of an intensive, 12-year partnership between the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Beijing and the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines.

Called "Green Super Rice," it is the result of a project begun in 1998, involving the painstaking crossbreeding of more than 250 different potential varieties and rice hybrids, according to Dr Jauhar Ali, a senior scientist and regional project coordinator for the Development of Green Super Rice at IRRI in Los Banos, south of Manila.

The development of the process, Dr Ali said, is considered so significant that Microsoft founder Bill Gates met personally with Zhi-Kang Li who holds a dual position both with IRRI as Senior Molecular Geneticist and as Chief Scientist with the Institute of Crop Sciences at the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Beijing and, through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, presented the program with a US$18 million, three-year grant to expand the benefits to Asia and Africa.

The two institutions are seeking additional donors to be able to push the rice to undeveloped corners of Africa and other continents to help stave off the growing need for food across the planet.

The process was developed by Zhi-Kang Li, It involves the efforts of hundreds of researchers in dozens of countries across the world, seeking to isolate the desirable traits from indigenous strains and then backcross breed them to produce hardier varieties. (emphasis added)

By the above account, I am reminded of the brilliant economist Julian L. Simon who once said

The essence of wealth is the capacity to control the forces of nature, and the extent of wealth depends upon the level of technology and the ability to create new knowledge.

If markets are only allowed to do their job, we’d see less worries over scarcities of natural resources.

Blogging Hiatus

I will be with my family along with very special friends for the weekend.

I am not sure if I can blog, but for sure regular blogging will resume by next week.

Thank you for your patronage and have a nice weekend.

"Knowledge is essential to freedom." -- William Ellery Channing (1780-1842)

The Politics of The Rice Scam

This from today’s Inquirer

An NFA audit found that 8 of the 10 awardees of the rice importation quotas in Luzon were all cooperatives with offices in Pangasinan province, said a source privy to a Malacañang probe of the previous administration’s massive rice importation program that the NFA said was overpriced....

In his report to Mr. Aquino last week, Banayo said the private importation deals were given to favored contractors supposedly through a questionable first-come-first-served scheme.

“Among the findings were: fictitious cooperatives and corporations were given the quotas, and qualifications standards were extremely liberal,” Banayo said in his executive summary submitted to the President.

Some comments...

In politics, the basic objective for the politicians is to grab credit (aimed at attaining high approval rating for election purposes) at the expense of another. This is usually coursed through the virtuosity (I am clean, the other is dirty) route. It represents crab mentality at its finest.

This issue is actually a revival. We dealt with this here: Government Failure: Imported Surplus Rice

The above news account exemplifies-special access or political privileges, privatizing gains while socializing losses or importantly the fundamental symptoms of the maladies of political distribution empowered or enabled by arbitrary laws. This maybe called either crony capitalism or rent seeking (state capitalism) or both.

Since it is the state who determines “who gets what” or the politically picking winners and losers (and not via the market forces through the price mechanism), the obvious result is inefficiencies, distortions, wastages (overpricing), and corruption. And who pays for all these? Obviously, the taxpayers.

Once politics is involved, economic calculation is set aside, as politics become the driver of the attendant actions by the leadership to redistribute resources. “Overpricing” thus becomes a politically subjective factor. (Based on which price level? As determined by whom? And when?)

This of course, is related to the problems of time consistency or the political sustainability of the policy over changing circumstances. The rice scam was an urgent issue during the Typhoon days of Pepeng and Ondoy. Today, with the urgency lost, wrong and questionable political decisions become a fodder for politicking.

This also represents as the knowledge problem, where the political leadership don’t know the costs and consequences of their actions (since they are just human) and the where unintended consequences of politically based actions extrapolate to a huge negative externality (side effect) on the populace.

The point is the problem isn’t mainly based on the virtues of the political leadership, but on the system that encourages such errant actions and malfeasances. Personality based politics won't solve the problem.

Lastly when the political leadership says “Let us reform the NFA. Let us reform its mandate so it will be much better”, the answer shouldn’t be in the direction of more political concentration and distribution of resources, but economic liberalization from the clutches of power hungry politicians.

In short, let the markets decide!

Will Falling Population (Demographic Time Bomb) Lead To A Reversal Of Globalization?

Lately I have encountered several commentaries suggesting that the “demographic time bomb” (falling population) will pose a risk to globalization by creating imbalances that would lead to political upheavals.

Here are two:

From Neil Howe and Richard Jackson in Global Aging And The Crisis Of The 2020's (bold emphasis mine)

“Rising pension and health care costs will place intense pressure on government budgets, potentially crowding out spending on other priorities, including national defense and foreign assistance. Economic performance may suffer as workforces gray and rates of savings and investment decline. As societies and electorates age, growing risk aversion and shorter time horizons may weaken not just the ability of the developed countries to play a major geopolitical role, but also their will.”

From Morgan Stanley’s Spyros Andreopoulos and Manoj Pradhan in ‘Ten for the Teens’(bold emphasis mine)

“The increase in macro instability comes at a time of major demographic transition in most DM and many EM economies. As populations become older, the demand for economic security - stable jobs, pensions - increases. This tension between higher instability and increased demand for security is likely to find its political expression in a backlash against globalisation. So far, the benefits of globalisation - higher income levels for most, i.e., the large middle class - have outweighed its drawbacks - increased competition and job instability. This has kept the globalisation show on the road until now. As this balance tips because the preferences of the middle class shift towards more security/stability, globalisation is likely to stall or reverse.”

There seems to be two separate issues here: unsustainable welfare states and globalization.

However the comments above attempt to make a connection which, for me, looks tenuous and confusingly premised on the fallacious ‘aggregate demand’.

Protectionism Equals Security?

Here is how I understand this: stripped out of the spending capacity due to old age, and with a government hobbled by fiscal straitjacket, the lack of demand (from both the private and the public) means slower economic growth which likewise would extrapolate to a political milieu that shifts from risk appetite (globalization) towards demand for ‘security and stability’ (protectionism), or in short, political stress.

For instance the Morgan Stanley tandem does an incredible turnaround, ``So far, the benefits of globalisation - higher income levels for most, i.e., the large middle class - have outweighed its drawbacks - increased competition and job instability. This has kept the globalisation show on the road until now.”

Are they suggesting that people who benefited from globalization will eventually bite the proverbial hand that feeds them? Are they suggesting too that people will see “security and stability” from lower incomes?

Will protectionism or restricting market activities make goods and services needed by the ageing society abundant and affordable? To the contrary, protectionism will only highlight on the shortages and the exorbitance of these economic goods that should lead to even more instability.

Murray N. Rothbard refuted this age old fallacy, he explained, (bold highlights mine)

It is difficult to see how a decline in population growth can adversely affect investment. Population growth does not provide an independent source of investment opportunity. A fall in the rate of population growth can only affect investment adversely if

-All the wants of existing consumers are completely satisfied. In that case, population growth would be the only additional source of consumer demand. This situation clearly does not exist; there are an infinite number of unsatisfied wants.

-The decline would lead to reduced consumer demand. There is no reason why this should be the case. Will not families use the money that they otherwise would have spent on their children for other types of expenditures?

Thus the problem of declining population can be helped by accepting immigrants or adopting to greater social mobility or the globalization of labor and by even more free trade.

We shouldn’t underestimate how people adjust to the new realities from the current underlying conditions. Importantly, we shouldn’t write off productivity of the senior citizens too (why? see below).

Illusion Or Reality?

Next would be the issue of welfare states. Once society realizes that the welfare state has been unsustainable, will people fight violently to retain the status quo (even if this is recognized as not possible) or will they cope up with the new reality?

The former would fall as part of the entitlement mentality engendered by excessive dependency or the moral hazard from political distribution while the latter will likely result from the realization that there’s no free lunch.

And perhaps in the realization that bellicosity won’t further society’s interests, they may opt for the latter (accepting harsh reality) than the former (live in a charade). And any political tensions from the succeeding reforms would signify as symptoms of ‘resistance to change’ than from a key reversal of political sentiment.

In the context of abrupt political-economic transitions from a crisis, Iceland’s violent riots from her financial crash of 2008 didn’t mechanically translate to close door ‘security’ based policies, as Iceland remains “moderately” economic free (44^th), according to Heritage Foundation, even as the crisis did have some negative impact on her economic freedom ratings (due to higher taxes and government spending).

From Heritage Foundation

The point is that the notion that crisis will instigate a radical reversal of people’s sentiment from openness to protectionism seems likely misguided.

Today, Iceland has shown signs economic recovery and has even applied to join the European Union (aimed at achieving more financial and trade openness, aside from social mobility)!

Protectionism likewise did not spread like wildfire in 2008, as earlier discussed.

Ignoring Technology

Another factor would be technology.

While it may true that fertility rates may be going down (upper window), it is often ignored how the advances in technology has continually enhanced people’s living conditions.

From Google Public Data

Global Life expectancy (lower window) has lengthened from 50 years to 68.95 years over the past 50 years. Japan reportedly has some 41,000 centenarians (over 100 years old)! [But I won’t be lucky to live this long, because of my love affair with beer]

And if futurist Ray Kurzweil is correct, people’s life span may extend to 120 years (by 2030) or even more (180 years) as rate of technology advances accelerates.

Again Murray Rothbard on the importance of technological advancement

“technological progress, is certainly an important one; it is one of the main dynamic features of a free economy. Technological progress, however, is a decidedly favorable factor. It is proceeding now at a faster rate than ever before, with industries spending unprecedented sums on research and development of new techniques. New industries loom on the horizon. Certainly there is every reason to be exuberant rather than gloomy about the possibilities of technological progress.”

In short, should these advances occur then all demographic projections should be thrown to the garbage bin, as they are falsely premised and would be rendered irrelevant.

The basic problem with mainstream insights is that people are treated like unthinking automatons. And because of this they’re most likely wrong.

The ultimate threat to globalization is inflationism and not demographic trends.

Will Jurassic Park (The Movie) Become Reality?

I’ve always been fascinated, and thus repeatedly watched via cable TV, the highly successful sci-fi thriller trilogy film of the Michael Crichton (novel) and Steven Spielberg (director), the Jurassic Park. The movie has been about the unforeseen consequences of turning a menagerie of cloned dinosaurs into an amusement park.

Well what seemed as merely a science fiction in the past may perhaps become a reality soon. I’m not referring to the amusement park of dinosaurs, but of the technology that would enable one.

According to the Telegraph (which includes the diagram above)

The woolly mammoth, extinct for thousands of years, could be brought back to life in as little as four years thanks to a breakthrough in cloning technology.

Previous efforts in the 1990s to recover nuclei in cells from the skin and muscle tissue from mammoths found in the Siberian permafrost failed because they had been too badly damaged by the extreme cold.

But a technique pioneered in 2008 by Dr. Teruhiko Wakayama, of the Riken Centre for Developmental Biology, was successful in cloning a mouse from the cells of another mouse that had been frozen for 16 years.

Now that hurdle has been overcome, Akira Iritani, a professor at Kyoto University, is reactivating his campaign to resurrect the species that died out 5,000 years ago.

If these scientists will be spot on with their predictions, then the implications would be REVOLUTIONARY. You may call it a black swan- a rare high impact event.

Since one thing may lead to another, then it won’t likely be just about Jurassic Park and about possibly saving endangered or the restoring of extinct species, but likewise the possibility of resurrecting our ancestors!

While it would be a pleasure to see Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, Menger debate Keynes live, it would be a nightmare to see Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot or Marcos back, yikes!

We’d also probably see our world co-exist with clones ala the movie The Island, starred by Scarlett Johannson. Of course, am guilty here of the projecting current trends into the future as a way of mental stimulation.

Nevertheless, the rapid progression of technological innovations never cease to amaze me.

Cognitive Dissonance And Inflation

It’s been one heck of a week as global markets appear to be in cognitive dissonance.

One, gold appears to be in a corrective mode. And since gold for me functions as a barometer for the direction of global stocks, the recent consolidation in Gold seems to be having some transmission effects.

Some volatility seems to have emerged in parts of the world markets. Bangladesh’s Dhaka Index recently experienced a violent shakeout with a crash that incited street riots[1], but has rallied intensely to close the week down only 2%.

Where there was no crash the damage had bigger, India’s market (4.22%) fell hard alongside with China (Shanghai 1.67%, Shenzhen 4.59%) as the latter raised bank reserve requirements[2] anew. Another High flying and one of the top gainer for 2010, Peru like Bangladesh experienced substantial losses (4.96%).

On a regional basis, ASEAN and Latin American markets were mostly lower, while East Asia was mixed, whereas major markets in Europe including Portugal whom has reportedly been pressed to accept a bailout have mostly risen. Talk about markets rising as concerns over a crisis ripple.

The Portuguese government has officially declined on the need for a bailout. However like contemporaries Greece and Ireland before her, both eventually succumbed[3] to bailouts. Nevertheless Portugal successfully sold 599 million euros ($778 million)[4] on the back of European Central Bank’s aggressive buying of the Portugal’s offering, aside from declarations of support from Japan and China, may seem to have prevented an auction failure, and thus, may have mitigated the crisis from escalating.

So as we predicted the bailouts, whether direct and indirect, have become a permanent feature of the marketplace until market forces eventually undercuts government ability to do pursue with this strategy.

Some experts say that gold’s decline forebode of a rising dollar that would likewise adversely impact commodity and equity prices. I would deduce that these experts have anchored or fixated their views to the 2008 post Lehman episode.

It isn’t true that a rally in the US dollar automatically means the reversal of the price trends of commodities. In 2005, the US dollar rose alongside with commodities or even gold.

Nevertheless it may seem difficult to become structurally bullish on the US dollar in the cognizance that the US appears as not restricting bailouts on her constitutents but likewise the Eurozone and even the rest of the world.

Inflation Is here

Next, even as gold has been weakening, while emerging market equities have been mixed, commodity markets seem to have picked up momentum. Meanwhile US treasury yields remain elevated from October lows.

stockcharts.com: Surging Commodities, Elevated Yields and Strong S & P

So you have surging commodities, weakening of the US dollar rising equities and higher yields, all of which seem to highlight the return of inflation.

And we seem to be seeing more indications where inflation has been gaining ground over the global economy. Importantly this can be seen even in nations which were supposedly under threat from “deflation”.

The Casey Research[5] enumerates on some of these:

-Consumer prices in December exceeded forecasts, up 0.5%, with core inflation up 1%.

-Producer prices rose 1.1% in December.

-China’s inflation, at over 5%, is beginning to cause problems.

-Import prices into the U.S. are on the rise.

-The European Central Bank is now warning of inflation, and interest rates there continue to rise. Back in the U.S., the rise in interest rates is becoming persistent, with 10-year Treasury rates moving from 2.57% in November to 3.31% today –

And the sequence of how inflation percolates as seen in the Austrian framework as aptly described by Gerald O’Driscoll[6],

``In the Mises/Hayek theory of economic fluctuations, the transmission of monetary shocks works through producer prices and incomes, and only later consumer prices. No measure of consumer prices, and certainly not a subset of consumer prices, is an adequate gauge of inflation.”

And I would further add that Wall Street seems to be acting based on these premises as banks cut holding of US treasuries at the fastest pace since 2004[7].

All the seemingly cognitive dissonance seen in the marketplace appears to highlight on the growing recognition of inflationary forces gaining traction.

At the end of the day, we should realize that inflation and volatility are like twins.

---

[1] See Bangladesh Stock Market Crash: Evidence of Inflation Driven Markets, January 11, 2011

[2] Strait Times, China reserve requirements raised to tame inflation, January 16, 2011

[3] Wall Street Journal Blog Portugal Bailout Denial: Sure Sign One Is Coming Soon?, January 11, 2011

[4] Businessweek/Bloomberg Portugal’s Borrowing Costs Fall at 10-Year Bond Sale, January 16, 2011

[5] Gold-speculator.com Let Us Print Notes!, January 14, 2011

[6] O’Driscoll, Gerald Inflation Is Here ThinkMarkets.com January 13, 2011

[7] Bloomberg.com Wall Street Dumps Most Treasuries Since 2004 on Growth, January 10, 2011

US Dollar, Gold and Democracy

I find it odd or self-contradictory for a high profile investment expert[1] to claim that Eurozone bondholders should accept losses while declaring US muni bonds as a “buy”. In short, bearish Euro bullish USD. I view this more as an endowment bias where people place a higher value on objects they own than objects that they do not[2] (That’s because the expert is domiciled in the US).

It may true that state of the US muni bonds should be seen at the local level, but this should apply to the Eurozone too. In other words, prospective haircuts should apply to any nations/state where the cost to maintain debt levels can’t be economically sustained and where the policy of bailouts ceases to be part of the picture.

The cost to maintain debt levels can also be read as the willingness to pay, as Dr. Antony P. Mueller rightly commented[3],

``With debt it is as much the willingness to pay as it is the ability to pay. One could even say that the willingness to pay precedes de ability to pay.”

In addition, there is the tendency to ignore the role played by central banks. In as much as the US Federal Reserve can print money to conduct bailouts, so as with the Europeans through the ECB. So who prints more money will likewise impact on the relative economics of debt.

While it may be true that interest rates would impact the Eurozone more than the US (see figure 2), interest rate dynamics can swiftly change depending on either rate of change of inflation at the national level or on the public’s fluid perception of credit quality conditions.

Interest Payments as share of GDP[4]

Besides, both the US dollar and the Euro are fiat based money that are structurally flawed, as it is being shown today with a gamut of bailout policies left and right, targeted at rescuing the banking system and welfare nations/states in distress.

Thus, like all paper money subject to currency debasement and currency wars or competitive devaluation, that would make both like a race to the bottom.

So it’s a matter of which country (US or the Euro) would make more policy errors.

So even while I may be bullish the Euro over the US over the short-term, I wouldn’t recommend positioning on either one of them over the opportunity costs of holding other assets.

Why the USD or the Euro when there are others to choose from?

And many investors seem to share my view and vote with their money. According to analyst Doug Noland[5]

``The past year saw another $500 billion flee the U.S. money fund complex in search of higher yields. Tens of billions flooded into perceived low-risk bond and muni funds, while tens of billions more headed overseas. Meanwhile, money flowed into the hedge fund community, where assets and leverage are said to now approach pre-crisis levels. All of this amplifies systemic risk.”

So while it may hold the US dollar may rally, mostly as a result of a weakened Euro, I think this could be temporary.

Yet even as the USD should rally, we shouldn’t expect the same pattern of asset behaviour to occur as with the 2008 paradigm as some other experts seem to suggest.

It’s not true that a strong USD automatically translates to weakness in all other assets.

In 2005 the US dollar rallied alongside commodities and global equity markets. Thus, reference points can give divergent views and the view that a strong USD means automatic weakness in all others means anchoring to the 2008 post Lehman bankruptcy episode.

For me, it will always be a question of how authorities are likely to respond to any unfolding problems than simply projecting past or present conditions into the future.

For now, the auto response mechanism or path dependency by policymakers has been to engage in bailouts. Thus, in sustaining these policies means we should position for boom bust cycles, or at worst, insure ourselves from the prospects of a crack-up boom phenomenon (flight to commodities) since money is never neutral.

In a similar vein, it would seem to be impractical to be bearish on gold or precious metals for the same reasons.

And in growing recognition of these reckless monetary policies, in the US, lawmakers of some 10 states have reintroduced bills to recognize gold and silver as money[6].

Thus, it would misguided to suggest that democracy can’t be compatible with gold.

As Professor Tibor Machan points out[7]:

In a just society it is liberty that is primary – the entire point of law is to secure liberty for everyone, to make sure that the rights of individuals to their lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness is protected from any human agent bent on violating them. Democracy is but a byproduct of liberty

Thus if gold should represent liberty then democracy, as a byproduct of liberty, should blend well with gold as money.

And this may be zeitgeist of the current trend of gold prices

---

[1] Moneynews.com Pimco’s El-Erian: European Bond Investors Must Accept Losses, January 14, 2011

[2] Wikipedia.org, Endowment Effect

[3] Mueller, Antony P. Portuguese Bond Sale, cashandcurrencies.blogspot.com, January 12, 2011

[4] Mitchell J. Daniel Which Nation Will Be the Next European Debt Domino…or Will It Be the United States?, Cato.org, January 11, 2011

[5] Noland Doug Issues 2011 Credit Bubble Bulletin, PrudentBear.com, January 14, 2011

[6] TPMDC At Least 10 States Have Introduced Gold Coins-As-Currency Bills, January 5, 2011

[7] Machan Tibor R. Reexamining Democracy, January 4, 2011

Politics Of International Bailouts

One major development that has offset such policy mistakes has been globalization. But of course, while policies from fiat currencies tend to likewise distort trade, the fact is that globalization has mushroomed in spite of fiat currencies.

Google Public Data: Global Merchandise trade has Doubled Since 1971

Global merchandise trade has more than doubled since the Nixon shock which closed the US dollar-gold convertibility in 1971 or the Bretton Wood standard.

Yet even when I harbored or expected a tinge of possible policy responses similar to that of the Great Depression, as it has been the natural impulse by governments to use crisis to usurp or expand the reach of political power, or in the words of former White House Chief Emmanuel Rahm[1], "Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before", this did not happen.

Well, not for most of the world.

DLC.org[2]: 155 temporary tariffs in 2008

In short, most nations opted to keep trade channels open in spite of the crisis.

Alternatively this means that nations have not responded in the same way as in the past or that most of the world has remained receptive to globalization to the disappointment of the protectionists.

And today, globalization isn’t only on trade but also in terms of bailouts. Not only that the US has been bailout the Europe[3] and the world, but also China[4] and Japan[5] as earlier stated have offered to bailout the Eurozone by buying the Euro debts.

Why then the international bailouts?

Bailouts always have political dimensions whether it is local or international. And the likely answer is that globalization has become a huge political influence from which the present crop of political leaders has latched on.

Where trade levels should diminish and magnify poverty levels, unsustainable political structures, like China and other autocratic regimes, could be exposed and risk destabilization that would result to the overthrow of the incumbent political leader or the system.

And considering that political dynamics have likewise been substantially affected by trade enabled innovations on technology, as evidenced by the recent People Power in Tunisia[6], rigid vertical government structures would be challenged by the political influences based on real time “flat world” connectivity, thus likely resulting to a new political order.

It’s either global governments prevents further advances of trade and technology, or governments adapts to the new political realities of the information age.

And given that people continually adjusts to the state of government affairs by circumventing policies or regulation, my bet is one of the latter.

Even the despotic regime of North Korea hasn’t stopped people from engaging in voluntary trade underground. North Korean authorities attempted to inflate the currency[7] in order to wipe out savings and stop the informal economy but this resulted to a huge backlash which the North Korean government eventually backtracked.

So while the politics of international bailouts may be meant to keep trade channels open, the longer term effects is for the mass distortions that could risks future trade via frictions from boom bust cycles or “super” inflation.

Nevertheless, one of the major fundamental positive developments is that connectivity enabled by technology would certainly pose as continuing hurdle to the advances of governments.

---

[1] Wall Street Journal Editorial A 40-Year Wish List, January 29, 2010

[2] DLC.org Governments imposed 155 temporary tariffs in 2008, September 23, 2009

[3] See The Phisix And The Boom Bust Cycle, January 10, 2011

[4] Los Angeles Times, China moves to prop up Europe's economy, January 15, 2011

[5] Wall Street Journal Japan To Buy Eurozone Debt To Help Europe Tackle Debt-Crisis, January 10, 2011

[6] See Tunisia’s People Power: A Combination Of Creative Destruction And The Politics of Obedience January 16, 2010

[7] Will North Korea's Version Of The 'Berlin Wall' Fall In 2010? January 3, 2010

Tunisia’s People Power: A Combination Of Creative Destruction And The Politics of Obedience

The New York Times reports,

The fall of Mr. Ben Ali marked the first time that widespread street demonstrations had overthrown an Arab leader. And even before the last clouds of tear gas had drifted away from the capital’s cafe-lined Bourguiba Boulevard, people throughout the Arab world had begun debating whether Tunisia’s uprising could prove to be a model, threatening other autocratic rulers in the region….

Because the protests came together largely through informal online networks, their success has also raised questions about whether a new opposition movement has formed that could challenge whatever new government takes shape. (emphasis mine)

This represents another validation of our prediction when I wrote,

The growing friction between technology and the old political society is definitely taking shape; eventually one has to give. My bet: creative destruction will win.

Aside from the first People Power at an Arab nation where the changes in the political order appear to be significantly influenced by the rapidly diffusing adaption to connectivity based technology platforms, the Tunisian experience suggests that People Power as a political concept as presciently advanced by the founder of modern political philosophy in France, Etienne de la Boetie, will become more accepted from the grassroots levels or become more widespread globally as more people will learn about their inherent power over governments.

To quote Etienne de la Boetie in the Politics of Obedience

Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude. A people enslaves itself, cuts its own throat, when, having a choice between being vassals and being free men, it deserts its liberties and takes on the yoke, gives consent to its own misery, or, rather, apparently welcomes it.

In short, people power and the web would make a mighty combination over the tyranny of governments.

So governments will try to fight these via the introduction of regulations and control of the web which would limit the democratization of information.

As one of the five things we should worry about in 2011 Cato’s Dan Mitchell rightly observers, (bold emphasis mine)

The Federal Communications Commission just engaged in an unprecedented power grab as part of its “Net Neutrality” initiative, so we already have bad news for both Internet consumers and America’s telecommunications industry. But it may get worse. The bureaucrats at the United Nations, conspiring with autocratic governments, have created an Internet Governance Forum in hopes of grabbing power over the online world. This has caused considerable angst, leading Vint Cerf, one of inventors of the Internet (sorry, Al Gore) to warn: “We don’t believe governments should be allowed to grant themselves a monopoly on Internet governance. The current bottoms-up, open approach works — protecting users from vested interests and enabling rapid innovation. Let’s fight to keep it that way.” International bureaucracies are very skilled at incrementally increasing their authority, so this won’t be a one-year fight. Stopping this power grab will require persistent oversight and a willingness to reject compromises that inevitably give bureaucracies more power and simply set the stage for further demands.

Heritage Foundation’s Economic Freedom Scorecard For The Philippines

We’ve been told that elections would usher in important positive socio-economic changes.

But where things matters most, particularly economic freedom, there appear to be little signs of progress.

Here is the newly released Economic Freedom Index scorecard from the Heritage Foundation on the Philippines.

As one would observe, the Philippines falls BELOW the world average, and whose score has been nearly STATIC from the past administration until the present.

The Scoring Methodology: (all bold highlights mine)

Business Freedom

Potential entrepreneurs face severe challenges. The overall regulatory framework is burdensome, and the legal framework is ineffective, holding back more dynamic and broad-based expansion of the private sector.

[my comment:

These are symptoms of too many arbitrary laws and regulations which results to the onus of red tape, that increases the incidences of corruption and inefficiencies.

All these add to the business risk premium which raises the costs of doing business and the subsequent required investment hurdle rate.

Ever wonder why investment in the Philippines has lagged the region? And how unemployment rates remain high despite high level of educational attainment by the population?]

Trade Freedom

The Philippines’ weighted average tariff rate was 3.6 percent in 2007. Some high tariffs, import and export restrictions, quotas and tariff rate quotas, services market access barriers, import licensing requirements, restrictive and non-transparent standards, labeling and other regulations, domestic bias in government procurement, inconsistent and non-transparent customs valuation and administration, export subsidies, widespread corruption, and weak protection of intellectual property rights add to the cost of trade. Fifteen points were deducted from the Philippines’ trade freedom score to account for non-tariff barriers.

[my comment: protectionism results to inefficiency of resource allocation and crony capitalism]

Fiscal Freedom

The Philippines has relatively high tax rates. The top income tax rate is 32 percent. The top corporate tax rate is 30 percent. Other taxes include a value-added tax (VAT), a real property tax, and an inheritance tax. In the most recent year, overall tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was 14.1 percent.

[my comment: a double whammy for investments]

Government Spending

In the most recent year, total government expenditures, including consumption and transfer payments, held steady at 17.3 percent of GDP. Fiscal stimulus and restructuring of public enterprises have widened the fiscal deficit, which had almost reached balance in 2007.

[my comment: orthodox Keynesian policies for the benefit of the entrenched rent seeking political-economic class at the expense of society]

Monetary Freedom

Inflation has been moderate, averaging 4.7 percent between 2007 and 2009, and was holding steady in 2010. The government influences prices through state-owned enterprises and utilities and controls the prices of electricity distribution, water, telecommunications, and most transportation services. Price ceilings are usually imposed on basic commodities only in emergencies, and presidential authority to impose controls to check inflation or ease social tension is rarely exercised. Ten points were deducted from the Philippines’ monetary freedom score to account for measures that distort domestic prices.

[my comment: global inflation has been moderate and this has camouflaged or masked the imbalances from local state interventionism. Once global inflation rises meaningfully the ramifications of such imbalances will be magnified.]

Investment Freedom

Foreign investment is restricted in several sectors of the economy. In many industries where foreign investment is allowed, the level of foreign ownership is capped. All foreign investments are screened and must be registered with the government. Regulatory inconsistency and lack of transparency, corruption, and inadequate infrastructure hinder investment. Dispute resolution can be cumbersome and complex, and enforcement of contracts is weak. Residents and non-residents may hold foreign exchange accounts. Payments, capital transactions, and transfers are subject to some restrictions, controls, quantitative limits, and authorizations. Foreign investors may lease but not own land.

[my comment: embedded anti-competition policies all designed at propping up the economic interest of the elites combined with a legal system that is vulnerable to the influences of the same vested interest groups.

This should be a great example of what the great Frederic Bastiat’s calls as “legal plunder”

“Legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways; hence, there are an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, bonuses, subsidies, incentives, the progressive income tax, free education, the right to employment, the right to profit, the right to wages, the right to relief, the right to the tools of production, interest free credit, etc., etc. And it the aggregate of all these plans, in respect to what they have in common, legal plunder, that goes under the name of socialism.”]

Financial Freedom

The Philippines’ small financial sector is dominated by banking. In general, the financial system welcomes foreign competition, and capital standards and oversight have improved. Consolidation has progressed, and non-performing loans have gradually declined. The banking sector is dominated by five large commercial banks. Two large state-owned banks account for about 15 percent of total assets. Credit is generally available at market terms, but banks are required to lend specified portions of their funds to preferred sectors. The non-bank financial sector remains small. Capital markets are centered on the Philippine Stock Exchange. The impact of the global financial crisis on banking has been relatively small because of the sector’s very limited exposure to distressed international financial institutions.

[my comment: like all banking arrangements around the world a central bank led banking cartel. Only that this privileged industry has been fortunate enough to escape the latest crisis out of the bad experience from our own crisis episode.]

Property Rights

Although the Philippines has procedures and systems for registering claims on property, including intellectual property and chattel/mortgages, delays and uncertainty associated with a cumbersome court system continue to concern investors. Questions regarding the general sanctity of contracts and the property rights they support have also clouded the investment climate. The judicial system is weak. Judges are nominally independent, but some are corrupt or have been appointed strictly for political reasons. Organized crime is a serious problem. Despite some progress, enforcement of intellectual property rights remains problematic.

[my comment: similar to my outlook in Investment freedom]

Freedom from Corruption

Corruption is perceived as pervasive. The Philippines ranks 139th out of 180 countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index for 2009. A culture of corruption is long-standing. The government has worked to reinvigorate its anti-corruption drive, but these efforts have been inconsistent. Reforms have not improved public perception and are overshadowed by high-profile cases frequently reported in the Philippine media.

[my comment-that’s the outcome of a political economic structure which relies mostly on political distribution of economic opportunities]

Labor Freedom

The labor market remains structurally rigid, although existing labor regulations are not particularly burdensome. Many of the country’s skilled workers have migrated to other advanced economies.

[my comment-similar remark on business freedom]

Overall, on the hype of change from a new administration, developments appear to be turning out as we predicted: the more things change the more they stay the same.

It is important to remember that any major reforms must not emerge only in terms “personality based politics” or the illusion of good government but a change that espouses a society of entrepreneurs or economic freedom

As Ludwig von Mises once wrote,

Prosperity is not simply a matter of capital investment. It is an ideological issue. What the underdeveloped countries need first is the ideology of economic freedom and private enterprise.

How Videogames Flourish Under Free Markets

Former hedge fund Kessler argues that Videogames will inspire many of the most important innovations in the coming years which would overshadow government’s influence.

Mr. Kessler writes, (bold highlights mine)

But without gaming, this technology would be expensive, one-off stuff that never sees much use. Much as keyboards and mice and fast graphics have driven corporate productivity for 40 years—killing carbon paper and Correcto Type—the next decades will be driven by tools that can harness voices and gestures.

All it takes is one application. High-margin industries like finance usually deploy these things first: The early adopters could be traders in commodity pits signaling like crazy folk. The rest will follow.

Videogames will influence how next-gen workers interact with each other. Call of Duty, a military simulation game, has a mode that allows players to cooperate from remote locations. In World of Warcraft, players form guilds to collaborate, using real-time texting and talking, to navigate worlds presented in high-resolution graphics. Sure, they have funky weapons and are killing Orcs and Trolls and Dwarves, but you don't have to be a gamer to see how this technology is going to find its way into corporate America. Within the next few years, this is how traders or marketers or DNA hunters will work together. No more meetings!

Even the entertainment and media businesses will be transformed. In 1985, Neil Postman of New York University wrote a book, "Amusing Ourselves to Death," disparaging the media for ruining discourse. Postman died in 2003, but I wonder what he'd think today: Online ad sales are now more lucrative than newspaper advertising, as marketers follow their customers. Netflix video streaming will change the cable TV business. The videogames Rock Band and Guitar Hero have taught the media how to package something that's at least 30 years old, in this case music you play along with, and sell it as if it were new.

The mass expansion of videogames only reflects on how specialization via technology has swiftly been diffusing into the highly competitive marketplace. The videogames industry today is estimated at $21 billion, according to Venturebeat.com and is expected to balloon to $68 billion, according to arstechnica.com. (includes the graph below)

And part of this growth will come from social network gaming.

According to Red Herring,

Farmville and other social games won't be needing Farm Aide support for 2011. According to a recently released eMarketer report, social gaming will reach a billion dollar business this year.

Not that the techsphere is reeling from the news. Considering the massive growth of Facebook and Zynga platforms for social gaming lately, this impressive statistic is hardly surprising, though it's nice to have the numbers to back it up.

According to the report, nearly 62 million Internet users, making up 27 percent of the online audience, will engage at least one game on a social platform monthly this year, a sizable increase from the 53 million who did so in 2010. US consumers will spend $653 million on social gaming for 2011, a hearty boost from the $510 million they spent last year.

Count me as one of the free riding game players (presently active in Knights of Camelot and Napoleonic wars but am rethinking if I should continue)

I think the idea that video games will serve as one of the most important source of innovation is spot on. That’s because video games seems emblematic of free market forces at work where competition drives innovation through the technology platform, where game developers tap the specialty market segments through various genre of games, which has been rapidly growing along with explosive growth of web usage.

While Mr. Kessler rightly attributes the origins of some of the past technological innovations to the government, it is important to point out that the market, and not the government, has fuelled the widespread use.

As rightly Peter Klein explains, (bold highlights mine)

But technological value is not the same as economic value. That can only be determined by the free choice of consumers to buy or not to buy. The ARPANET may well have been technologically superior to any commercial networks that existed at the time, just as Betamax may have been technologically superior to VHS, the MacOS to MS-DOS, and Dvorak to QWERTY. (Actually Dvorak wasn't.) But the products and features valued by engineers are not always the same as those valued by consumers. Markets select for economic superiority, not technological superiority (even in the presence of nefarious "network effects," as shown convincingly by Liebowitz and Margolis).

In short, those cited figures—billions in dollars—account for as the economic value of these videogames. It’s not just the game, but how people spend for it which sustains and grows the industry and at same time satisfying millions of users.

From the investment perspective, surging video and online social network games seem as one great area to explore.