Deflation

Bitcoin is a bubble, a way to speculate and not the future of money

The actual writing of this piece took around six hours, though I have been thinking on this issue for at least the past nine years since I started writing my Easy Money book. I have been told that the backlash from the bitcoins believers will be huge. All feedback is welcome, as long as you don’t abuse. And if you choose to abuse at least read the piece first. You will be able to abuse better.

 Bulbulon ko abhi intezar karne do. (Let the bubbles wait for now).
— Gulzar, Vishal Bhardwaj, Usha Uthup and Rekha Bhardwaj in 7 Khoon Maaf.

Let’s start this one with a small story.

Salvador Dalí was a famous painter who lived through much of the twentieth century. He was a pioneering figure in what is known as Surrealism.

Other than being a fantastic painter, Dalí was also a sharp businessman. The story goes that once Dalí had treated some friends at an expensive New York restaurant. When the time to pay for the meal came, Dalí instead of paying in dollars, like anyone else would have, decided to carry out a small experiment.

On the back of the cheque Dalí had signed to pay for the expensive meal, he drew a sketch in his inimitable style. He signed it and handed it to the waiter. The waiter passed it on to the manager.

The manager realised the value of what Dalí had given him and decided to frame the cheque and hang it on the wall, making sure that anyone who came to the restaurant saw it.

Of course, this meant that Dalí’s cheque wasn’t encashed and he didn’t really have to pay in dollars for the expensive meal he had taken his friends out for.

This trick worked for Dalí. He was delighted and he used the same trick at different New York restaurants to pay for meals. The managers of all these different restaurants framed the cheque and hung it on one of the walls in their restaurants, so that everybody who came to the restaurant could see and realise that the famous painter Salvador Dalí had dined at the same place as they were.

This interesting story is recounted by Mauro F Guillén in his book 2030—How Today’s Biggest Trends Will Collide and Reshape the Future of Everything: “

Now what was happening here? If I can state this in simple English, Salvador Dalí, had turned his art into money. As Guillén writes:

“The money offered to pay for the meals was never deposited, as the cheques were transformed into artworks and took on a separate life. For Dalí, this maneuver was a stroke of genius. He could print his own money (his drawings had value), and people were willing to accept it as a form of payment.”

The trouble was Dalí went overboard and paid for one too many meals using this trick. In the end, the restaurant managers wised up and Dalí probably had to start paying real dollars for the expensive meals he took his friends out for.

What’s the moral of this story? Anyone can create his or her own money as long as others are willing to accept it, though one thing needs to be kept in mind. As Guillén writes: “As with national currencies, any money can be felled by the laws of supply and demand, as an excessive supply depreciates its worth and reduces people’s willingness to use it.”

What Dalí ended up doing in a very small way, governments have done over and over again, over the centuries. They have gone overboard with printing money and spending it, created high inflation, as too much has chased the same set of goods and services, and in the process destroyed the prevailing form of money. (If you are interested in details, I would suggest that you read my Easy Money trilogy).

Dear Reader, you must be wondering by now why am I recounting this story in a piece which is headlined to be about the bitcoin bubble. Have some patience, everything will become clear very soon. Read on.

*****

Bitcoin is a digital currency that does not use banks or any third party as a medium or at least that is how it is conventionally defined. It is governed by a string of cryptographical codes, which are believed to be military grade and very tough to break.

The price of a bitcoin has rallied big-time over the last few months. It rose from a little over $10,000 per bitcoin in early September to more than $40,000 per bitcoin in early January. As of January 8, 2021, the price of bitcoin touched an all-time high of $40,599.

One of the core selling points of bitcoins as well as its raison d’être is that unlike paper money they cannot be created out of thin air. The number of bitcoins is finite and the code behind it is so written that they cannot go beyond a limit of 21 million tokens.

Interestingly, mining, or the generation of a bitcoin, happens when a computer solves a complex algorithm. Anyone can try to mine bitcoins, but with a finite number being generated at regular intervals and with an increase in the number of people joining the mining race, it has become increasingly difficult to solve the algorithm and generate bitcoins.

As of January 11, 2021, the number of bitcoins in circulation stood at 18.6 million units. The rate at which bitcoins are being created has slowed down over the years and the last fraction of the 21 millionth bitcoin will be created only in 2140.

The larger point here is that unlike the paper money system (or to put it slightly more technically the fiat money system) which can be manipulated by central banks and the governments, the bitcoin system can’t.

Hence, there is an overall limit to the number of bitcoins that can be created. This is the main logic offered in support of buying and owning bitcoins. Unlike central banks or governments or Salvador Dalí (in case you are still wondering why I started with that story), money in the form of bitcoin cannot be created out of thin air and beyond a certain limit.

In fact, this core idea/message at the heart of the bitcoin was built into the first fifty coins, now known as the genesis block, created by Satoshi Nakamoto, the mysterious inventor behind it. The beauty of bitcoin is that even not knowing who really Nakamoto is, doesn’t impact the way the system he created, works.

The genesis block contained a headline from The Times newspaper published in London dated January 3, 2009. The headline was: “Chancellor on brink of second bail-out for banks”. The headline and the date are permanently embedded into the bitcoin data.

As Nakamoto wrote on a message board in February 2009: “The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that’s required to make it work… The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts.”

Bitcoin was supposed to be this grand idea meant to save the world from the way the central banks and governments manipulate the paper money system. As William Quinn and John D Turner write in Boom and Bust—A Global History of Financial Bubbles: “To its advocates, bitcoin was the money of the future: it could not be devalued through inflation by a central bank, you could spend it on anything without having to worry about government interference or taxes, and it cut out the middleman, namely commercial banks.”

The question is, in these times of easy money, has bitcoin reached anywhere near its original goal or is it just another way of pure speculation.

Let’s look at this pointwise.

1) Here is a chart of the price of bitcoin in dollars since July 18, 2010 (I couldn’t find the price of bitcoin before this in the public domain, hence, the random date).


Source: https://in.investing.com/crypto/bitcoin/historical-data

It doesn’t take rocket science to understand that if you have been a long-term investor in bitcoin, you would have made shitloads of money by now. But the fundamental question is, is bitcoin money or even the future of money, as it is made out to be, by those who are in love with it, or is it simply another form of speculation.

One of the key characteristics of money is that it is a store of value. The recent rally in bitcoin has led to many bitcoin believers telling us that bitcoin is a store of value. This comes from a very shaky understanding of what the term store of value actually means.

A store of value basically means that something has a stable value over time. As Jacob Goldstein writes in Money: The True Story of a Made-Up Thing: “If $100 buys your family a week’s worth of groceries today, there is a very good chance it will buy approximately a week’s worth of groceries a year from now. The dollar is a good store of value (it tends to lose about 2 percent of its value every year).”

Let’s look at what has happened to bitcoin over the last few months. It rose from a little over $10,000 per bitcoin in early September 2020 to more than $40,000 per bitcoin in early January 2021.

As of January 8, 2021, the price of bitcoin touched an all-time high of $40,599. As I write this early in the morning on January 14, 2021, the price of a bitcoin is around $37,329. The price has fallen by 8% in a little over five days’ time. So, where is the stability of value? And this isn’t a one-off event. Bitcoin has moved rapidly up and down on many occasions.

But this is a very simple point. Here’s the more complicated point . The price of a bitcoin as of September 5, 2020, was $ 10,092. On January 8, 2021, it reached $40,599, a rise of 302% in a matter of a little over four months.

If bitcoin really was money, using which we could make and receive payments and borrow and lend, the recent rally would have created a havoc in the economy.

What does the rise in the value of any form of money really mean? It means that the price of everything that money can buy is falling. And in this case prices would have fallen big-time. As Goldstein puts it: “This rise in the value of bitcoin would have caused a deflation far worse than the one in the Great Depression.” Deflation is the scenario of falling prices and is deemed to be dangerous because people keep postponing their consumption in the hope of getting a lower price. This hurts businesses and the overall economy.

Now take a look at the following chart which plots the price of a bitcoin in dollars between December 2017 and December 2018.

Source: https://in.investing.com/crypto/bitcoin/historical-data

The price of a bitcoin as on December 16, 2017, was $19,345. A year later on December 15, 2018, it had fallen by 83% to around $3,229. What would this have meant if bitcoin really was money? It would mean that the price of money has fallen and hence, the price of other things has gone up. In this case, it would mean very high inflation, even hyperinflation.

In its current form, bitcoin is no store of value. If it was to be used as money, the world would hyperventilate between deflation and inflation.

2) Another key characteristic of money is that it is a medium of exchange or to put it in simple English, it can be used to buy things (like Dalí bought meals at expensive restaurants).

According to financial services company Fundera 2,352 American businesses, accept bitcoins as a payment. The United States is the mecca of bitcoin believers. As per the US Census Bureau there were around 7.7 million companies in the US with at least one paid employee. This statistic doesn’t inspire much confidence. Barely anyone takes payments in bitcoins even in the United States.

Of course, it takes time for any new form of money to be adopted, but for something that has been around for 12 years, the rate of adoption seems quite poor.

Personally, I don’t know of any business that accepts bitcoin as a payment in India. Maybe, there is some coffee shop in Bengaluru that does. Dear reader, if you know of it, do let me know.

3) The bitcoin believers like to compare it with gold. The reason gold has acted as a hedge against the proclivity of the governments and central banks to create paper money out of thin air, is that it cannot be created out of thin air. While alchemists, which included Isaac Newton as well, have tried this over the centuries, no one has been successful in developing a chemical formula that converts other metals into gold. Bitcoin works because of a similar dynamic, the believers tell us. There is a limit to the number of bitcoins that can be created and as time passes by it becomes more and more difficult to mine bitcoins. That’s how the code behind bitcoin is written.

But the thing is that the code behind bitcoin is freely available. Anyone can take it and tweak it and come up with a new kind of money. Over the years this has happened and many of these new forms of money have ended up as shitcoins.

As Quinn and Turner write:

“In August 2016, one bitcoin was trading at $555; in the next 16 months its price rose by almost 3,400 per cent to a peak of $19,783.3 This was accompanied by a promotion boom, as a mix of cryptocurrency enthusiasts and opportunistic charlatans issued their own virtual currencies in the form of initial coin offerings, or ICOs. These coins had, on the face of it, no intrinsic value – to entitle their holders to future cash flows would have violated laws against issuing unregistered securities – but they nevertheless attracted $6.2 billion of money from investors in 2017 and a further $7.9 billion in 2018.”

A lot of this money never came back to the investors. There is no way to make sure that this won’t happen in the future.

Also, at a broader level, a free market in money is a bad idea. The United States went through this situation sometime in the nineteenth century (Something I discuss in detail in the first volume of Easy Money). It was very easy to get a banking license and banks could print their own money.

As Goldstein writes: “Not all banks were shady. Not even most banks were shady. But the notes printed by the shady banks looked as legit as the notes printed by the honest banks. And there were a lot of notes—at one point, the Chicago Tribune reported that the country had 8,370 different kinds of paper money in circulation.” Imagine the confusion this would have created.

It was also easy for counterfeiters to manufacture their own paper money. In this scenario, a guide called Leonori’s New York Bank Note List, Counterfeit Detector, and Wholesale Prices Current was published once a month. An issue of this guide, dated 18 November 1854, shows that 1,276 such banks were in operation in various states and 825 different kinds of forged notes were in circulation. The financial system was in a total anarchy.

While it is easy to make a case for a non-government decentralised money system, what may lie in store isn’t something we may want in the first place. The sad part is very little thinking has happened on this front. Saying, let the best money win is a very insensitive way to go about it.

4) The bitcoin code which limits their number to 21 million units is written in C++. As Sean Williams writes on Fool.com: “Last I checked, code can always be erased and rewritten. While it’s unlikely that a community consensus would be reached to increase the circulating supply of bitcoin, the possibility of this happening isn’t zero.” Anyway this possibility isn’t going to arise until 2140, when the last fraction of the bitcoin will be mined, and by then you and I, won’t be around. So, it doesn’t really matter.


5) Let’s talk a little more about paper money. Why do others accept it as money? Because they know that the government bank/central bank deems it to be money and hence, still others will accept it as money as well.

As L Randall Wray writes in Modern Money Theory – A Primer on Macroeconomics for Sovereign Monetary Systems:
“The typical answer provided in textbooks is that you will accept your national currency because you know that others will accept it. In other words, it is accepted because it is accepted. The typical explanation thus relies on an ‘infinite regress’: John accepts it because he thinks Mary will accept it, and she accepts it because she thinks Walmart will take it.”

While this sounds correct there is a slightly more nuanced answer to the question.

There are three main powers that any government has: 1) The right to “legal” violence. 2) The right to tax. 3) The right to create money out of thin air by printing it.

As Wray writes:

“One of the most important powers claimed by sovereign government is the authority to levy and collect taxes (and other payments made to government, including fees and fines). Tax obligations are levied in the national money of account: Dollars in the United States, Canada, and Australia; Yen in Japan; Yuan in China; and Pesos in Mexico. Further, the sovereign government also determines what can be delivered to satisfy the tax obligation. In most developed nations, it is the government’s own currency that is accepted in payment of taxes.”

What does this mean?

As Wray puts it:

“Ultimately, it is because anyone with tax obligations can use currency to eliminate these liabilities that government currency is in demand, and thus can be used in purchases or in payment of private obligations. The government cannot easily force others to use its currency in private payments, or to hoard it in piggybanks, but government can force use of currency to meet the tax obligations that it imposes… It is the tax liability (or other obligatory payments) that stands behind the curtain.”

Hence, the government creates demand for paper/fiat money by accepting taxes in it. This has ensured that the paper money system has kept going despite its weaknesses.

What this also means is that for bitcoin to become popular and move beyond the nerds, it needs a use case as solid as paying taxes in what government deems to be money, is.

It is worth remembering here what Wray writes: “For the past 4,000 years (“at least”, as Keynes put it), our monetary system has been a “state money system”. To simplify, that is one in which the state chooses the money of account, imposes obligations (taxes, tribute, tithes, fines, and fees), denominated in that money unit, and issues a currency accepted in payment of those obligations.”

This is not to say that governments haven’t destroyed money systems in the past. The history of money is littered with examples of kings, queens, rulers, dictators, general secretaries and politicians, representing governments in different eras, having destroyed different money systems at different points of time. But the government has always comeback and controlled the money system the way it has wanted to.

And unless governments and central banks start taking a liking to bitcoin, there is no way its usage is going to spread to a level where it can hope to challenge the prevailing paper money system. It is worth remembering that if governments start taking interest in bitcoin, it in a way beats the entire purpose behind its creation.

Also, every government will want to protect its right to create money out of thin air. Right now bitcoin is too small in the overall scheme of things for governments to be bothered about it and hence, they have largely humoured it (not in India though).

The market capitalisation of bitcoins (number of coins multiplied by the dollar price) as of January 8, peaked at around $759 billion. The global GDP in 2019 was around $88 trillion. So the price of bitcoin even at its peak was lower than 1% of the global GDP.

Hence, the bitcoin story is like that of a rich Indian father basically allowing his son to play around, until he thinks that the son now needs to grow up.

6) There is another point that needs to be made here regarding the paper money system. This is something I realised while writing the third volume of Easy Money  and it makes me sceptical of anyone who wants to write off the paper money system in a hurry. (Before you jump on me for being a blanket supporter of the paper money system, I am not, but then that doesn’t mean I don’t see logical arguments when they are offered).

Many years back, in one of my first freelancing assignments, I happened to interview the financial historian Russel Napier. He explained to me the link between paper money and democracy. As he told me on that occasion:

“The history of the paper currency system, or the fiat currency system is really the history of democracy … Within the metal currency, there was very limited ability for elected governments to manipulate that currency. And I know this is why people with savings and people with money like the gold standard. They like it because it reduces the ability of politicians to play around with the quantity of money. But we have to remember that most people don’t have savings. They don’t have capital. And that’s why we got the paper currency in the first place. It was to allow the democracies. Democracy will always turn towards paper currency and unless you see the destruction of democracy in the developed world, and I do not see that, we will stay with paper currencies and not return to metallic currencies or metallic-based currencies.”

Back then bitcoin wasn’t really on the radar. The reason people with savings liked gold back then, is why many of them like bitcoins now.

The twentieth century saw the rise of both paper money and democracy. Pure paper money started coming into being after the First World War. The reason for this is very straightforward. In a democracy whenever there is a crisis, the politicians and the technocrats advising them need to be seen to be doing something.

As an ex-RBI Governor once told me, do nothing cannot be a strategy. And this need to be seen to be doing something, can most easily be fulfilled by manipulating the paper money system that prevails in a democracy. It gives central bankers the option of printing money and driving down interest rates in the hope that people will borrow and spend more and businesses will borrow and expand.

Of course, this has its own problems (as I keep highlighting in my pieces over and over again). But then, the prevailing system does really allow politicians to show that they are trying. Any other system would take this option away from politicians. Hence, the paper money system is not going to be replaced in a hurry. No government is going to let go of this privilege.

7) This is a slightly technical point, but I think it needs to be made. As I have mentioned through this piece, over the years it has become more and more difficult to mine bitcoins. Now bitcoin farms with giant racks of mining computers, are needed to mine bitcoins. The days when bitcoins could be mined using the processing power of a PC are long gone.

The bitcoin farms, as they are known as, need a lot of electricity. Hence, mining operations have moved to countries where electricity is cheap. They have moved to countries like Iceland, Mongolia and primarily, China.

This has created another problem. As Goldstein writes: “By the beginning of 2020, Chinese miners had grown so large that they controlled most of the processing power on the bitcoin network. And the way the code for bitcoin was written gave them control over the system.”

While, bitcoin might be a decentralised democratic system running on code, but it’s people who ultimately control the mining of bitcoins and hence, can direct its future.

So, will the future of bitcoin be driven by China? And if that turns out to be the case, what does this do to its chances of spreading as actual money, used in the selling and buying of things? There are no easy answers to these questions.

8) One of the key points of bitcoins was that it was a non-government decentralised money system which promised freedom from the middlemen. But that hasn’t really happened. As Quinn and Turner write: “[Bitcoin] had promised freedom from middlemen, but trading it without a third party was cumbersome unless the user was expert in cybersecurity.”

If you are using a broker to trade bitcoin it beats the entire idea of freedom from middlemen. Also, the moment you convert your money into fiat money and the money comes into your bank account, the entire idea of remaining unknown and the government not knowing what you are doing goes for a toss. Hence, you may have your reasons to buy bitcoins, but basically you are speculating.

9) You might want to ask why you haven’t heard all this in the mainstream media. The reason for that lies in the fact that the incentives of the media are misaligned these days. Most investment related news is presented as a money-making opportunity. Hence, in this case the bitcoin believers have gotten more space and screen time in the media.

Many of the bitcoin believers are like the original investors in a Ponzi scheme. They have an incentive to talk up bitcoin, get more investors into it, drive up its price and make more money in the process. (In fact, these are precisely the kind of stock market investors that you get to see on TV and read in the media most of the time, but that is another topic for another day).

Also, given the extremely short attention spans that people have these days, the written word doesn’t find much of an audience. As Quinn and Turner put it: “More fundamentally, the move away from the written word to television financial news, docusoaps and social media may corrode the ability of investors to think clearly and understand the complexities of the financial system.”

You cannot understand economic history and the complexities of the financial system by watching TV or watching stuff over the internet or even listening to extremely detailed podcasts (podcasts can just give you a flavour of things and a feeling that you are actually learning a lot). The only way to understand complex issues is to read, read and read more.

In an era of short attention spans, bitcoins are just the right asset to speculate on. Their price goes up or falls even before you can say Virat Kohli. (This is another reason to support my writing).

10) We live in an era of easy money. Central banks have printed trillions of dollars during the course of 2020 to drive down interest rates in the hope of encouraging people to borrow and spend and businesses to borrow and expand. Interest rates are in negative territory in some of the European nations.

In this scenario of very low interest rates, investors are desperate to earn returns. Hence, a lot of money has been invested into stock markets all over the world, driving them to levels not justified by earnings that companies are expected to earn in the years to come.

Some money has also found its way into bitcoins. As The Economist puts it: “The current surge seems to have been spurred by interest from the financial establishment, most of which had long scorned it.” In simple English, hedge funds are buying bitcoins. Given that bitcoins are thinly traded, this has driven up prices by astonishing levels. Hence, like stock markets, bitcoin is also in bubble territory.

And as we have seen over the past few decades, hedge fund money can be quite mercurial. They can drive down prices faster than they drove them up.

To conclude, the fact that the price of bitcoin is so volatile tells us that most people investing in it aren’t really bothered about the long-term story of bitcoin as money, the bitcoin believers try selling all the time. If they did believe in this story they would have bought bitcoin and held on to it. But as the crash of 2018 showed that is clearly not the case.

As Saifedean Ammous writes in The Bitcoin Standard, the bible of the bitcoin believers:

“Buying a Bitcoin token today can be considered an investment in the fast growth of the network and currency as a store of value, because it is still very small and able to grow many multiples of its size and value very quickly. Should Bitcoin’s share of the global money supply and international settlement transactions become a majority share of the global market, the level of demand for it will become far more predictable and stable, leading to a stabilization in the value of the currency.”

(Ha ha, this is to show that I also read stuff I don’t really agree with).

I am not clairvoyant. This may happen. This may not happen. My reading of economic history tells me it won’t. But then I might turn out to be wrong. What do they say about history not repeating itself but rhyming? But what if it doesn’t rhyme as well?

There are no guarantees when it comes to economics. The trouble is that while you are waiting for all this to happen, the price of a bitcoin is at the level of a very very very very expensive large cap stock and its volatility is that of a small cap penny stock.

So, if you do invest in bitcoin, do understand that you are taking a punt, you are speculating, you are hoping that the price goes up and does not fall. Also, don’t go looking for fundamental reasons for investing in it.

Given that investing in bitcoin is equal to taking a punt, please don’t bet your life on it. As the old cliché goes, don’t put all your eggs in one basket.

PS: This doesn’t mean I don’t believe in digital money. I do. But I also believe that it will be controlled by large corporations and the governments.

China Will Continue to Export Lower Prices Across the World

chinaIn June 2014, the Chinese foreign exchange reserves peaked at $3.99 trillion. Since then the foreign exchange reserves have been falling, first gradually and then at a very rapid pace. Between June 2014 and December 2014, the foreign exchange reserves fell by around $150 billion to $3.84 trillion.

In 2015, the foreign exchange reserves fell at a very rapid rate. During the course of the year, the foreign exchange reserves fell by a whopping $512.7 billion. As of December 2015, the Chinese foreign exchange reserves stood at $$3.33 trillion. They fell by a further $100 billion dollars and stood at $3.23 trillion as of the end of January 2016.

What is happening here? Money is rapidly leaving China. Wei Yao and Jason Dew of Societe Generale write in a recent research note: “China is waging an uphill battle against capital outflows. In the past six quarters a cumulative $657 billion of net capital has left China.”

Yao and Dew write that there are three major areas of outflows when it comes to the money that is leaving China. First, the resident banking outflows have amounted to $353 billion. What does this mean? The Chinese are allowed to move up to $50,000 out of China, every year. Hence, banking outflows of $353 billion means that the Chinese are moving their money out of China. It also means that the Chinese banking system is increasingly integrated with the global financial system.

Second, the non-resident banking outflows have been at $248 billion. This means that the non-resident Chinese are withdrawing their money out of the Chinese banking system.

Further, between 2005 and 2013, the Chinese yuan was allowed to gradually appreciate against the dollar. In late 2005, one dollar was worth around 8.3 yuan. By the end of 2013, one dollar was worth around 6.05 yuan.

Many companies used this era of the appreciating dollar to borrow money in dollars. With the yuan appreciating against the dollar, it made sense to borrow in dollars. At a very simplistic level, a company which borrowed a million dollars when one dollar was worth 8.3 yuan would get 8.3 million yuan when it converted the dollars to yuan. When returning this money in 2013, assuming the entire principal amount of the loan needed to be returned in the end, the company needed only 6.05 million yuan to buy the million dollars, it would need to repay the loan. The interest payments in yuan would also have been lower as the yuan appreciated.

Nevertheless, since the start of 2014, the yuan has been depreciating against the dollar. At the beginning of 2014, one dollar was worth 6.05 yuan. Currently it is worth around 6.52 yuan. This basically means that the Chinese companies which had borrowed in dollars will need more yuan to repay the loans. Hence, the loans are being repaid because the fear is that the yuan will continue to depreciate against the dollar in the time to come. These repayments are also showing up in non-resident banking outflows of $248 billion.

The third and the most interesting item of outflow is the net errors and omissions. This is typically a balancing number and is usually close to zero for most countries, write Yao and Dew of Societe Generale. In the Chinese case this number over the last six quarters stands at $327 billion.

What does this mean? It means that the Chinese are moving their money out of China circumventing the existing regulations. What this also tells us is that the Chinese are not confident about the state of the Chinese economy and are now moving their money out of China, through unofficial channels. And that is indeed worrying.

The People’s Bank of China, the Chinese central bank, manages the value of the Chinese yuan against the dollar. When a large amount of money leaves China, people and institutions taking their money out sell yuan to buy dollars. This essentially should cause a shortage of dollars in the market. A shortage would mean that the dollar would appreciate against the yuan or the yuan would depreciate rapidly. Over the years, the Chinese have not allowed the value of the yuan to vary rapidly against the dollar. The value has always been managed.

In order to ensure that the yuan maintains its value against the dollar, the Chinese central bank needs to sell dollars and buy yuan. This ensures that there are enough dollars going around in the financial system and hence, the value of the dollar does not appreciate rapidly against the yuan.

The trouble is that the Chinese central bank does not have an endless supply of dollars. Only the Federal Reserve of the United States, the American central bank, can create dollars of thin air. This explains why it has gone slow in defending the yuan against the dollar, in the recent past, and allowed its currency to depreciate against the dollar.

While $3.23 trillion of foreign exchange reserves may sound like a lot of money, it isn’t. The International Monetary Fund has a methodology for calculating the adequate level of foreign exchange reserves. As Yao and Dew write: “Based on the IMF methodology…our calculations indicate that China’s reserves are at 118% of the recommended level. Reserve adequacy has been deteriorating sharply over the past five years.”

This means that adequate Chinese reserves are to the tune of $2.8 trillion. The rate at which Chinese foreign exchange reserves have been falling, reaching a level of $2.8 trillion shouldn’t take more than six months. Also, it is worth remembering here that these foreign exchange reserves aren’t exactly in a vault somewhere. They have been invested all over the world. And the question is how liquid these investments are. Until when can the Chinese keep selling these investments in order to defend the value of the yuan?

Interestingly, Yao and Dew feel that there is a greater than 60% probability that the People’s Bank of China will move towards a free-float and let the market decide the value of the yuan against the dollar. They also feel that there is a 30% probability that the Chinese central bank will continue to follow the current strategy of trying to defend the yuan and at the same time allow it to depreciate against the dollar, now and then.

Either ways, the value of the yuan against the dollar will be at much lower levels in the months to come.

What will this mean for the world at large? It will mean that Chinese exports will become even more competitive than they currently are. And this will lead to China exporting more deflation (i.e. lower prices) to other parts of the world.

The column originally appeared in Vivek Kaul’s Diary on Equitymaster on February 17, 2016

Of Japanese deflation, global money printing and quest for economic growth

3D chrome Dollar symbolThe human obsession with economic growth has perhaps been best captured by E.B. White in an essay called A Report in January published in January, 1958. The essay is a part of a book titled Essays by E.B. White.

In this essay White writes: “The theory is that if you shoot forty thousand deer one year you aren’t getting ahead unless you shoot fifty thousand the next, but I suspect there comes a point where you have shot just exactly the right number of deer. Our whole economy hangs precariously on the assumption that the higher you go the better off you are, and that unless more stuff is produced in 1958 than was produced in 1957, more deer killed, more automatic dishwasher installed…more heads aching so they can get the fast fast fast relief from a pill, more automobiles sold, you are headed for trouble, living in danger and maybe in squalor.”

This obsession with economic growth has been at play in the aftermath of the financial crisis which broke out in September 2008, when the investment bank Lehman Brothers went bust. The central banks and governments all around the Western world unleashed an era of easy money, by printing money and maintaining low interest rates.

This was done in the hope of people borrowing and spending more. So, with interest rates remaining low, people were likely to buy more homes, more cars, more consumer goods and so on. And in the process there would be more economic growth.

Most central bankers did not want the Western world to turn into another Japan. Right through the eighties, the Japanese stock market and the real estate market had huge bubbles. These bubbles burst towards the end of the eighties. And it is widely believed by economists that the Japanese economy never recovered from this. It entered into an era of deflation (the opposite of inflation, when prices fall).

When the economy is in a deflationary scenario, people tend to postpone their purchases in the hope of getting a better deal. Once this starts to happen, the business earnings start to fall. This leads to businesses cutting costs by firing people among other things. All this impacts economic growth. Businesses cut prices further, in the hope of persuading more people to buy things. And so a deflationary cycle sustains itself.

This is something that Western central bankers wanted to avoid. And this led to the unleashing of an era of easy money, which continues. In fact, as Raghuram Rajan, the governor of the Reserve Bank of India, recently said in a speech: “The canonical example here is Japan, where many are persuaded that the key mistake it made was to slip into deflation, which has persisted and held back growth.”

There is a great fear that what has been happening in Japan will happen in large parts of the Western world as well, if central banks don’t act and flood their financial systems with money.

In fact, Andrew Hallande, the Chief Economist of the Bank of England recently suggested the elimination of paper money. This would allow central banks to impose negative interest rates (which some central banks have already tried in Europe). When there is a negative interest rate on deposits, the bank will charge people for depositing their money in a bank account. This will lead to people spending their money instead of keeping it in a bank account, where its value will fall because of a negative interest rate. The spending that follows because of negative interest rates will lead to economic growth.

This is only possible if there is ‘only’ digital money and no paper money. If banks apply negative interest rates as of now, people can simply withdraw that money in the form of paper money and keep it under their mattresses or wherever they want to. Hence, Hallande’s suggestion of only digital money to revive economic growth.

Such suggestions come from the fear of deflation. But the question is are things in Japan as bad as they are made out to be? James Rickards in his book The Death of Money, talks about a speech where he heard a former deputy finance minister of Japan, Eisuke Sakakibara, speak.
“He [i.e. Sakakibara] made the often-overlooked point that because of Japan’s declining population, real GDP per capita will grow faster than real aggregate GDP.”

What this basically means is that because of declining population in Japan, even if the overall Japanese economy does not grow or grows at a very slow pace, there will still be more economic growth per person in Japan.

As Rickards writes: “Far from a disaster story, a Japan that has deflation, depopulation, and declining nominal GDP can nevertheless produce robust real per capita GDP growth for its citizens. Combined with the accumulated wealth of the Japanese people the condition can result in well-to-do society even in the face of nominal growth that would cause most central bankers to flood the economy with money.”

In fact, Rajan made a similar point in his recent speech. As he said: “A closer look at the Japanese experience suggests that it is by no means clear that its growth has been slower than warranted let alone that deflation caused slow growth. It is true that after its devastating crisis in the early 1990s, Japan may have prolonged the slowdown by not taking early action to clean up its banking system or restructure over-indebted corporations. But once it took decisive action in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Japanese growth per capita or per worker looks comparable with other industrial countries.”

This becomes clear from the accompanying table:

In fact, one of the fears of deflation, as explained earlier, is that it leads to unemployment. Nevertheless that doesn’t seem to be the case in Japan. As Rajan said: “Japanese unemployment has averaged 4.5% between 2000-2014, compared to 6.4% in the US and 9.4% in the Euro area during the same period. In part, the Japanese have obtained wage flexibility by moving away from the old lifetime unemployment contracts for new hires to short term contracts. While not without social costs, such flexibility allows an economy to cope with sustained deflation”

So, it’s time that central bankers take a re-look at the entire Japanese experience and revise their views on the idea of deflation.

Meanwhile, Japan seems to be getting ready for more money printing. As they say, the more things change, the more they remain the same.

The column originally appeared on October 9, 2015 on The Daily Reckoning 

Mr Chidambaram, falling inflation is not deflation

P-CHIDAMBARAM
The former finance minister P Chidambaram writes a weekly column for The Indian Express newspaper. The latest column published on April 26, 2015, was headlined Across the Aisle: Inflation is bad, but is deflation good?.
Normally I never read economic columns written by politicians for the simple reason that you can never expect them to take a line which is different from their party line. And given that one knows what the party line is on most occasions, there is no point in reading the column. In most cases the politician tries to come up with reasons in order to defend the party line, irrespective of the fact whether that makes good economics or not.
But on this occasion I did read Chidambaram’s piece because the word ‘deflation’ caught my attention. The headline of the piece suggests that deflation is not good. Deflation is the opposite of inflation. Inflation is a situation in which prices are rising. Deflation is a situation in which prices are falling. Why is deflation not good? Once people figure out that prices are falling, they are likely to keep postponing their consumption in the hope of getting a better deal in the days to come.
If this happens, business revenues will most likely fall and so will economic growth. As business revenues fall, companies may try and maintain profits by firing people, among other things.
Those who get fired will spend money only on the most important things. Further, the firings will also have an impact on others who will fear that they might also get fired and in the process postpone expenditure. And so the deflationary cycle will work.
Hence, deflation is bad.
The only thing is that Chidambaram does not define deflation as a scenario of falling prices. As he writes: “Deflation and its consequences: The decline in the rate of inflation could be attributed to many reasons.”
Chidambaram essentially talks about a fall in the rate of inflation and defines that as deflation. A fall in the rate of inflation means that prices are rising, only that they are rising at a slower rate than they were earlier. This is very different from prices falling. The term Chidambaram should have used is disinflation, which essentially refers to a fall in the rate of inflation.
A former finance minister and a Harvard MBA to boot, should not be making a mistake in the usage of these terms. This is Economics 101.
In his column Chidambaram goes on to defend the economic policies followed by the Congress led UPA government between 2004 and 2014. Chidambaram writes that the current government has added to the woes of the farmer by “a paltry increase in Minimum Support Price (MSP), inefficient procurement, increase in prices of fertilisers, poor compensation for lost crop etc.” He goes on to suggest that the UPA tried to help the farmer in different ways: “introduction of MGNREGA in 2006 to supplement farm income/wages; farm loan waiver in 2008 to give partial relief from past debt; and generous increases in MSP between 2004 and 2014.”
Let’s look at these points one by one starting with the debt waiver which was made in 2008. The total amount of debt waived off to farmers was Rs 71,680 crore. While this one time waiver did not bring down any bank, it built in a huge moral hazard into the system. Economist Alan Blinder writes in After the Music Stopped that the: “central idea behind moral hazard is that people who are well insured against some risk are less likely to take pains (and incur costs) to avoid it.”
The message that was sent to farmers was that in the future there was no need to repay your loans because eventually the government would waive it off. In a country where the banking penetration is low and that remains starved of credit, this was a very short sighted measure aimed at the May 2009 Lok Sabha elections.
Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act(MGNREGA) was launched in 200 of the most backward districts of the country on February 2, 2006. It was extended to all rural districts from April 1, 2008. The scheme aims at providing at least 100 days of guaranteed employment in a financial year to every household whose adults are willing to do unskilled manual work. The trouble was that MGNREGA essentially became another scheme where money was simply given away without any substantial assets being created.
As T H Chowdhary wrote for The Hindu Business Line in December 2011 “Villages cannot sustain so many unskilled labourers and not-so-literate labour. By creating useless “work” we are promoting dependency among the unfortunate rural, illiterate and unskilled population…An example of the village Angaluru in Krishna district will illustrate how good money is being thrown away for bad results. Out of 1,000 families, 800 had registered themselves as BPL, seeking work under NREGA. So far, it was 100 days at Rs. 100 per day. Even at this, 80,000 mandays of useful work in a year is impossible in a village and that too, year after year.” Hence, MGNREGA essentially became an exercise of giving away money without any comparable increase in production and this led to high inflation.
These moves didn’t help the Congress led UPA government win many votes either. As Swaminathan Aiyar wrote in a recent column in The Times of India: “The Congress claimed that its farm loan waiver and MGNREGA (its rural job scheme) won it the 2009 election. Really? Congress won only nine of 72 seats in three very poor states where these schemes should have helped most — Bihar, Chhattisgarh and Odisha.”
Chidambaram also wrote about the generous increase in the minimum support price or wheat and rice between 2004 and 2014. The MSP is the price at which the government buys rice and wheat from the farmers, through the Food Corporation of India(FCI) and other state government agencies.
Between 2005-2006 and 2013-2014, the MSP of wheat was increased at an average rate of 14% per year. In 2005-2006, the MSP for common paddy(rice) was Rs 570 per quintal. By 2013-2014 this had shot up to Rs 1310 per quintal, an increase in price of around 11% per year.
This rapid increase in the MSPs led to very high inflation in general and food inflation in particular, between 2008 and 2014.  As economist Surjit Bhalla put it in a November 2013 column in The Indian Express “For each 10 per cent rise in previous years’ procurement prices, there is a predicted 3.3 per cent increase in the current year CPI…When the government raises the MSP, the prices of factors of production involved in the production of MSP products — land and labour — also go up.” Food inflation hurts the poor the most. Half of the expenditure of an average Indian family is on food. In case of the poor it is 60% (NSSO 2011).
To conclude, if the policies of the Congress led UPA were so pro-farmer, why did the lose the 2014 Lok Sabha election, so badly? Guess, Chidambaram’s next column can try answering that question as well. 

The column originally appeared on The Daily Reckoning on Apr 28, 2015

'The Federal Reserve Learnt the Lessons Of The Great Depression'

Prof Randall Kroszner..

R Jagannathan and Vivek Kaul

Randall S Kroszner served as a Governor of the Federal Reserve System from March 2006 until January 2009. During his time as a member of the Federal Reserve Board, he chaired the committee on Supervision and Regulation of Banking Institutions and the committee on Consumer and Community Affairs. Kroszner was a member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) from 2001 to 2003. Currently he is the Norman R Bobins Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. He is an expert on international financial crises and the Great Depression. He was recently in India for the opening of The University of Chicago Center in Delhi. In this interview Kroszner tells Forbes India on how the Federal Reserve managed to avoid another Great Depression in 2008 and why it had to let the investment bank Lehman Brothers go bankrupt.

You were a governor at the Federal Reserve between 2006 and early 2009. That must have been a very tough and an exciting time…
Three easy years…(laughs). I am joking.
Can you give us some flavour of how those years were?
It was an incredibly challenging time because the markets were moving so rapidly. The economy was also moving rapidly downward. So we had to take important decisions in real time. We would often get into situations where we would try to survive until Friday and then try to do the resolution by Sunday, before the Asian markets opened. So we had a lot of board meetings late on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. And it was a time where having an economic framework was very useful because when you have to make decisions in real time, you need to have a framework to understand what the priorities are.
You and Ben Bernanke are scholars of the Great Depression. How did that help?
A number of us were quite familiar with the economic history. Three out of the five of us on the board had written papers on the Great Depression. And we were all pretty much influenced by Milton Friedman and Anna Scwartz’s magisterial A Monetary History of the United States. Their study squarely put the blame on the inaction of the Federal Reserve, turning a depression into the Great Depression. Those were very important lessons for us and gave us both an economic and historical framework for looking into the kind of price distress we were having at that point of time, so that we could act quickly and boldly to prevent a repeat of the Great Depression.
Did you all really believe that if the fiscal side and the monetary hadn’t acted as they did in 2008, you were really seeing a repeat of the Great Depression?
There was a certainly a risk of that because clearly there was a lot of turmoil in the financial markets. There was a potential for failure of many financial institutions, if the Fed did nothing and did not provide liquidity to the market and some institutions. It was by no means a certainty. Even if the probability was low, it’s a risk that I and other members of the Federal Reserve board were reluctant to take.
In the meetings at the Fed before September 2008 what was the atmosphere like? Did Chairman Bernanke and other governors have a clue of what was to come?
If you see the verbatim transcripts of 2008 many of us including myself were very concerned about the fragility of the market and the economy. We undertook some very bold action in terms of a very rapid interest rate cut. This was at a time when the European central banks were raising interest rates because oil prices were rising throughout 2008. But our forecast was that demand was likely to go down significantly and that the rise in oil prices was just a temporary price shift not suggesting an underlying increase in inflation. And that is why we had interest rates very low during that time period while other central banks were raising interest rates.
Being the Chair of the committee on Supervision and Regulation of Banking Institutionsyou must have been in the room when a decision to let Lehman Brothers go bust would have been made. What was the atmosphere like?
So, there was no meeting where a go/no go was made. It was a series of processes. Remember we were dealing with independent investment banks having significant funding troubles and having great concerns about their ability to survive. And so we were exploring whether there could be merger partners for organisations like Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers. Bank of America decided to buy Merrill Lynch. There were others who were looking at Lehman Brothers and we thought that we would be finding a merger partner. But it then emerged over that weekend[the weekend of September 13-14, 2008] that a merger partner was not available for Lehman Brothers. The market had known that they were in trouble for a while. And Lehman Brothers had not been willing to merge with a number of other institutions that had proposed merger over the summer. Hence, it was in an effectively weak capital position. Its business model was imploding and so, the Fed was not able to do a capital infusion.
Why was that the case?
The Fed can only lend against good collateral to a solvent organisation. It was very difficult to make an assessment at that time. There was a merger partner avaialble for Merrill Lynch and Bank of America could provide capital infusion and support. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs had sufficient capital and sufficiently functional business models, that we felt comfortable granting them bank charters on an emergency basis. But Lehman Brothers did not have that wherewithal.
But two days later Federal Reserve stepped into rescue AIG. How do you explain that?
Well remember that the Fed could lend against good collateral. The problematic part of AIG was the financial products subsidiary of the holding company. But AIG had other operations in many states and in many countries that were not associated with the challenges that were there in the financial products division. And also AIG had sufficient collateral to be able to post against the loan.
You are also a scholar of the Great Depression. What were the mistakes made during the Great Depression that haven’t been made during the period of what is now called the Great Recession?
As you know a number of us including Bernanke, myself and one of the other governors, were students of the Great Depression and had done work on it. Milton Friedman and Anna Scwartz’s in their magisterial book on the monetary history of the United States had said that depression of the late twenties and early thirties was turned into the Great Depression precisely because the Fed did not act. The Fed stood by as the money supply collapsed, and as deflation came in. The prices fell by a third, GDP fell by 30%, and unemployment went up to 20%, and there was no action.
And that was the lesson?
Yes. That was a very important lesson for those of us who had studied the Great Depression, to make sure that we did not make that mistake of inaction because the central bank can prevent deflation. Broadly, we certainly learned the lessons of the Great Depression at the Fed, to make sure that we didn’t make the same mistakes. We didn’t just sit ideally and allow the price level to fall significantly and allow the GDP to contract. Honestly, we were able to avoid a significant to recession. It is really something very different from what happened in the 1930s.
You also managed to avoid a deflation…
Deflation can be very destructive as we saw in the thirties. Even a mild deflation can be very problematic as we have seen over the last fifteen years in Japan. It was the strong commitment on the part those of us who studied the 1930s as supposed to the others, to make sure to not allow a state of inaction, where a central bank did not act as the lender of the last resort, which is actually what it was created to do. Further, central banks around the world have to be vigilant against the threat of deflation.
International financial crises is an area of your expertise. Why are economists unable to spot bubbles. Your colleague and Nobel laureate Eugene Fama has even gone to the extent of saying that “I don’t even know what a bubble means. These words have become popular. I don’t think they have any meaning.”
It is easy ex-post to say that aha that price did not make any sense or it was clear that price would be coming down. But when in you are real time it is very difficult to be able to tell whether there is some sort of dislocation of the market or a fundamental change. We had the same challenge after the Asian, Russian and the Latin American crisis in the 1990s. The World Bank, IMF and many economists looked for indicators, so called red flags, which you could look at and tell when the economy is is getting overheated. They tried to figure out which are the indicators that can tell us that credit growth is too fast, or that there is a “bubble” in a particular sector. Despite a lot of work by a lot of very smart people on the policy side and the academic side, we really haven’t come up with a simple set of indicators or any indicator where you can have confidence and say just look at x, y and z, and you know that there is some sort of dislocation here, that is going to be reversed.
In a recent interview you said that the Fed’s approach to communication has changed through the years. Could you elaborate on that?
The communication has become more complete and more transparent and also the words have changed over time. They are sometimes called forward guidance. They are sometimes called open mouth operations because its talking about what kind of purchases and sales that the open market operations are going to do. In my last meeting at the Federal Open Market Committee(FOMC) we brought interest rates to approximately zero and said that we would keep them there for an extended period of time. That gradually changed into a particular date, and Fed would describe dates like 2014/2015. That changed to a description of 6.5% unemployment threshold. And most recently the Fed has said that it would not be focusing on a particular unemployment threshold.
What is the aim here?
I think all of the statements are trying to get at the same thing. It’s different words in different circumstances, around the same idea about the desire of the Fed to provide liquidity support to monetary accommodation to make sure that the economy fully recovers before it decides to take the punchbowl away. In these uncharted waters, giving a little bit more guidance about what the Federal Reserve thinks about policy making and how is it going to react to data is helpful because the past behaviour may not be that useful because we haven’t had these kinds of circumstances before.
In a recent interview when you were asked that when do you think the time will come when the Federal Reserve will start to raise interest rates, you had replied “I do think it will come sometime in my lifetime”. Does that mean the era of low interest rates in the US is here to stay? That was a bit of flip comment. I hope you understand that it was not meant seriously. We have had low interest rates for five to six years now. There is a hope that the economy will be strong enough sometime in 2015, and rates will be able to go up. You can see from most recent FOMC documents all of the FOMC members believe that the interest rates will be higher by the end of 2015 than they are now. And that sounds to me as reasonable.
A lot of gold bulls have been thinking that some point gold should have some role in money making. Do you see gold ever having any kind of role in monetary policy in future?
It’s narrow to pull this in any particular commodity because then the value of the currency will rise and fall depending on the vagaries of the particular market. So, like a flood in a mine in South Africa will have a big impact. And that is like putting too many eggs into one basket. The least you would want is a broader commodity based basket that would be well diversified and would be able to withstand these kind of shocks. So certainly thinking about alternative benchmarks for units of account are worthwhile to do. But I wouldn’t want to put all of my eggs in one particular commodity basket, particularly a market like gold which is a very small one. Small shocks like a flood in a mine in South Africa could have a big impact on money supply. Hence, it doesn’t seem like a very stable system.
The near zero interest rates and the QEs have had a bigger impact on the assets markets than the credit markets and the real economy. Would you say it is building up some problem?
It is important that the Fed is aware about this and is looking into this. Jeremy Stein one of the governors of the Fed has been at the forefront trying to think about what indicators to look at, indicators that might raise red flags. Jeremy as well as his staff are thinking very carefully about that. Monitoring this very very closely is very important and I know that the Fed is. To be able to predict which markets will have a dislocation, it is impossible to do that. No one has that kind of foresight. But I do think there is much more focus on that today than there was in the past.
In another five six months it will be six years since the Lehman Brothers went bust. How long do you think the easy money policies will continue?
As Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke had said, whatever it takes, a corollary of that is as long as it takes. We have had a slow recovery than anyone had hoped for and that has been true not only in the US but many other countries as well. Some countries like India and some emerging markets that had done very well in the late 2000s have seen a significant fall in growth more recently. As the FOMC and Janet Yellen have said they are now on a path of tapering. It is very important to draw the distinction between tapering and tightening. The Fed had made a commitment to buy $85 billion worth of additional assets every month and that added nearly $1 trillion to the balance sheet every year. And with tapering now it is going to reduce the pace of that increase. So, it is not a tightening it just reducing the pace of additional accommodation. The additional accommodation is likely to wind down by the fourth quarter of this year and then depending on economic conditions, around six to nine months after that, the Fed might actually begin the process of tightening. But this is sort of a very gentle lengthy process. This is not a sudden shift of policy.

The interview originally appeared in the Forbes India magazine dated Jun 27, 2014