- Why growth in the world will not be as high as in the past
- QE will end badly
- Why labour is getting so less of the GDP and so why profit growth is so good compared to GDP
Why growth in the world will not be as high as in the past
It is not necessary for economic growth to be so low in the coming years, but there are several factors why growth will be lower in the coming years than in the last decades.
good government investing could produce more growth, in Europe and it is
labour reform and in Emerging Markets it is less corruption/ a better judicial
system that should provide much better economic growth. Woody is losing
confidence in Abenomics because Abe is saying that labour reforms are too
All these factors go into reverse now.
Government debt will become a disaster when the labour force is shrinking and nominal GDP is not growing enough.
For the Emerging Markets: the big ones are leaving stage 1 of development (Rostow) where a command economy can force high economic growth. In stage 3 a good judicial system is necessary and less corruption. Innovation, ideas have to trigger growth and that will not happen in
with the vested interests only interested in the government companies they own/
get their money from. The current politicians have to give away their
privileges and that will not happen easily. The BRIC’s don’t have the right
structure with a balanced system of fairness (judicial system), care (social
security so they don’t have to save half of their income) and freedom
(competition, drive for innovations). China is best positioned but with
its too much red tape it will not be good enough. India
(Of course I see things more positively: demographics are not that bad in the
All important will be if productivity growth will go down because there are no new all purpose innovations like internet, computers, steam machine, cars etc. Gordon thinks all communication innovations are not all purpose and will not contribute to productivity growth. Woody and I are more optimistic. Networks are bigger than in past, there was a knowledge explosion. But Woody thinks the innovation cycle will not lead to fast improving productivity soon.
QE will end badly: the unintended consequences
Woody thinks a bit like William White/ FED governor Stein have written about the dangers of QE.
As told before by Woody monetary and macro policy could not succeed after 2008 because there are too many targets and not enough instruments (the failure against the Tinbergen axiom).
Since the credit crisis macro policy has to solve many new problems (system crisis, deleveraging of private sector, retiring baby boomers) while they initially didn’t had new instruments (QE is a new instrument, reforms another)
Monetary policy is now excessively overused.
We have seen the benefits now of QE, but the costs are not yet visible.
QE1 was necessary to rescue the system, but the QE after 2009 was dangerous, not necessary in the eyes of Woody (and maybe also of Stein).
The interest rates are extremely low, even the long dated yields. Artificial low interest rates cause wrong investments, can cause higher risk premiums (Stein arguments). Getting rid of QE can cause higher interest rates than the natural interest rate over some time (Koo argument, he thinks that is already happening now)
In normal times low interest rates will trigger more investments and consumer spending, less saving.
But the very low rates now are creating uncertainty about the long run. Business is now not investing more when interest rates are going down. People are now saving more with lower interest rates because they can’t leverage up and need to save more for their pensions at current low interest rates (PV: you also hear that QE hurts the private sector with the difference between the coupon yield of the bought bonds and the deposit rate).
Zero interest rates are not necessary thinks Woody. Other government policy is necessary: in the
productive government spending
in infrastructure, R&D, in Europe/Japan labour reforms. US
Woody agrees with McKinnon, stick with the devil you know: hike interest rates but buy more mortgages etc. when you want to stimulate the housing market
It was stunning that when the FED only talked about taper of QE but didn’t do it you got already such a big market reaction. When it really will take place markets could move more, but maybe not, see the
It looks like only the shadow banking system is getting all the advantages of QE
The 30-Year Decline in Labor’s Share of Income
Why important according to woody:
• It deepens the “inequality” and the “hollowing out of the middle class” stories
• Political unrest can and will result
• The decline logically implies a hefty rise in corporate profits, just as we have seen
• The story is global
Of course for an investor the importance is: it is the main reason why equities are doing so well, why profit growth can be higher than GDP growth (or growth of business sales)
Reasons Why Labor’s Share Has Declined
• Decline in the relative price of Investment Goods
• Loss of bargaining power by labor unions
• Impact of the rise of
and of its illegitimate trade
• De-skilling of the workforce due to deteriorating educational performance
• Low interest rates
• “Ludditism” and new technologies (robots will do all the work cheaply)But these factors will go into reverse in the coming years. The prices of investment goods, chips are declining slower, the bargaining power of individuals will go up,