How are we really doing?

This post looks at the current state of the economy.  Although the data may seem to be a few months out of date, it is the latest available and indicates a difficulty for economic bodies such as the Bank of England who try to control the economy. Their task is made even more difficult because, for example, not only are the Labour Force Survey figures out of date, they also do not respond quickly to changes in the economy since employers often wait a few months before hiring or firing workers to see if changes they experience are permanent or temporary.

GDP growth slowed at the end of 2018 from 0.4% to 0.3% in the three months to the end of October. This was largely due to a 0.8% fall in the manufacturing sector, particularly the manufacture of vehicles and pharmaceuticals. Our productivity continues to disappoint having been almost flat for 10 years, and about 20% below what it would be if it had grown at the trend rate for the last ten years. Investment has fallen for the last nine months, unlike our G7 partners who have experienced double digit growth.

However, the labour market continued to do well between August and October with the number of people in work increasing to 32.48 million, 396,000 more than a year earlier. The employment rate (the proportion of people aged from 16 to 64 years in work) was 75.7%, higher than a year earlier (75.1%) and the joint-highest estimate since comparable estimates began in 1971 while the unemployment rate (unemployed people as a proportion of all employed and unemployed people) was 4.1% or 1.38 million people. As a result, the proportion of people inactive was approximately 21%, again the joint lowest since 1971.

Inflation, measured by the CPI, dropped to 2.1% in December, the lowest since January 2017 when it was 1.8%, caused by falling air fares and oil prices (causing falling petrol and diesel prices among other things). Employee average weekly earnings increased by 3.3% over the year, giving a real increase of 1.2%, a welcome change from recent years when the rate of inflation has exceeded the increase in earnings. However, over the year, poverty increased, with 14 million people (22% of the population) in relative poverty (defined as 60% of the median income after housing costs). This includes more than 4 million children, with more than half of the children in single parent families in poverty. Food bank use has increased by 13% in the last year.

The balance of payments current account deficit increased to £26.5 billion between July to September, 2018, which equated to 5% of GDP, the largest deficit recorded for two years in both value and percentage of GDP terms. Contributing to this was an increase in the deficit on trade in goods and services, as the service sector surplus fell, and an increase in the primary income deficit caused by an increased net outflow of profits from FDI in the UK. (Primary income is the net flow of profits, interest and dividends from investments in other countries and net remittance flows from migrant workers). The majority of the deficit was financed by foreigners purchasing UK shares and UK investors selling part of their overseas portfolios.

Finally – an apology to younger readers. The latest government figures have shown that the share of UK wealth held by those over 65 has grown to 36% of the total, averaging £1.1 million.  The proportion of over 65s who are millionaires increased from 7% in 2006 to 20% in 2016. This wealth is in the form of property, their pension funds, holdings of shares and other savings. The biggest losers were those in the 35 – 44 age group whose share has dropped from 15% to 10% (although the value of their wealth rose from £180,000 to £190,000. This is a major change over the last 20 years when 21% of pensioners were in poverty.

Advertisements

20 Years of the Euro

The origins of the euro were set out in 1992 in the Maastricht Treaty, which set out the pathway to economic and monetary union (EMU). This involved increased co-ordination of monetary policy, more converged economies and then the establishment of the European Central Bank and a single currency. In 1999, the euro came into existence as an accounting tool and, three years later, it became a physical currency, the official currency of the Eurozone.

In order to be successful, a single currency requires that member countries are both in similar stages of the economic cycle and are converged in terms of key economic variables. This means they will respond similarly to external shocks such as rising oil prices or a major demand-side shock in the world economy and changes in interest rates will have a broadly similar effect on businesses and households in each country.

The countries joining the eurozone had to meet convergence criteria to join. These were:

  • an inflation rate no more than 1.5% greater than the average of the 3 lowest countries
  • long term interest rates no more than 2% greater than the average of the 3 lowest countries
  • a stable exchange rate within the exchange rate mechanism (an agreement to limit the flexibility of exchange rates) for 2 years
  • a budget deficit less than 3% of GDP and a national debt less than 60% of GDP or falling towards it.

The advantages of belonging to a single currency revolve round greater economic stability because there are no exchange rate fluctuations, leading to increased investment, including foreign direct investment, economies of scale and greater international trade, in line with comparative advantage. There are also lower costs since commissions paid when changing currencies no longer apply to members of the single currency (but still apply when trading with counties outside the single currency area). There is also greater price transparency which increases competition since it is easier to compare prices in different countries

The UK did not join because it believed that the disadvantages would outweigh the benefits. The key one was the loss of economic sovereignty. Not only did member countries lose control of their interest rates, there now being a single one set by the European Central Bank which might have different priorities to the UK government, there was also no possibility of adjusting the exchange rate to boost exports and cure a balance of payments deficit. This meant that adjustment to economic problems would have to be internal, via cuts to real wages, probably accompanied by higher unemployment, in order for a country to improve its competitiveness. Furthermore  the UK government did not want  to limit its scope for fiscal adjustment because of government borrowing restrictions. There was also the fear that the UK economy, because of its higher level of home ownership (and therefore more homeowners with mortgages), closer links with the USA and its role as an oil producer, was not sufficiently converged with the members of the eurozone. There was also the issue of losing the pound which weighed heavily with politicians.

So how has the eurozone done since it began? It survived the financial crisis and the debt crises faced by the PIGS, the weakest eurozone countries, (Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain), setting up a fund to provide support to members in difficulty. The currency has also been accompanied by a growth in foreign trade, with eurozone trade doubling between 1999 and 2008, (but we do not know what would have happened without it). Furthermore, it has grown from the original 11 members and now has 19 members -Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Spain. As the FT pointed out, “the euro has become the second most important currency in the world. It accounts for 36% of global payments and 20% of central banks’ foreign reserves, second only to the dollar. The euro is used by 340m people in 19 countries. Another 175m people outside the eurozone either use it or peg their currency to it”.

However there is a more pessimistic view. Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel prize-winning economist, argued last year that the euro has not been that successful, when one compares its growth with that of the USA. He also argues that there could be a new euro crisis in the offing with high Italian government borrowing, continued inequality in incomes between richer and poorer members of the eurozone with the latter suffering from low growth and poor competitiveness. The Economist (5th Jan 2018) talked of the ECB being too restrictive in terms of its interest rate policy, low rates of growth and high unemployment among some eurozone members. How the eurozone will cope if interest rates increase in 2019 or if there is another debt crisis remains to be seen.

A Brexit Update

It is now 23 days to Xmas and 117 days to Brexit on 29th March 2019. While one of these events is certain, the other is less so and this post looks at the Brexit picture in the run-up to the vote in Parliament on 11th December.

What happens in the vote is crucial. One possibility is that Mrs May wins but this is looking increasingly unlikely since there are two key groups likely to vote against her. Firstly, there are those seeking a “Hard Brexit”, such as the members of the European Research Group, on the right wing of the Conservative Party who are not happy with the way the deal ties us to Europe. On the other side are those who would wish to remain in the EU or seek the softest possible Brexit deal and might oppose it, hoping it will open up the possibility of a second referendum. If the government does lose the vote much will depend on the scale of the loss. It is possible that after falls in the value of sterling and of UK shares as markets take fright and, maybe, some small adjustments in the terms of the UK’s departure arrangements, (said by the EU not to be on offer), that there is a second vote and the government’s deal is accepted.

Alternatively, it could be that there is no majority for the current deal and this leads to Parliament opting for either a “People’s vote”, the UK leaving with no deal, a general election or the current or a new prime minister seeking a new agreement during an extended transition period. A “People’s vote” has difficulties – it is likely to take at least five months to organise and there will be significant disagreement over the question or questions to be asked. Is the choice between the current offer and no deal or should we include the possibility of remaining? Finally, what might the effect of a second referendum voting to remain be on those who voted to leave previously who were told that the 2016 vote was a “once in a generation” decision.

A no deal Brexit, whether adopted deliberately or drifted into is another possibility. The view of the KPMG Head of Brexit is that the government is not prepared for this and, while some sectors, such financial services, pharmaceuticals and the motor industry are ready for this, many others, particularly those dominated by SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises) are not. A key area which the government will have to address is the transport of goods into and out of the UK. At present 17% of UK trade and 1/3 of our trade with the EU in goods uses the port of Dover. It is the shortest crossing, making it the cheapest and fastest way to import and export to nearby countries, particularly important for perishable products and those companies adopting ‘just in time’ production methods. It has been estimated that a 2 minute delay at the Dover ferry and Eurostar terminals would cause a 20 mile tailback on the motorways into Dover.  This would arise because lorries which are currently able to enter and exit at Dover do not face checks because of our membership of the single market which, among other freedoms, allows the free movement of goods. The government has suggested that other ports might take part of the traffic but, not only would this result in longer and therefore more expensive crossings, pushing up prices, other ports lack the necessary infrastructure for customs checks and do not have the capacity, and possibly not even the space, to expand in the short term.

While we can be certain, or fairly certain, that the impact of a ‘no deal’ would be mitigated by the government for essential industries such as water and pharmaceuticals, those which are less essential will suffer. Newspapers are already reporting stories of firms building up stocks of components and finished products; for example, a major pharmaceuticals company is planning to build up 6 months stocks of products and raw materials on both sides of the Channel and even Fortnum & Mason, the luxury Piccadilly grocer, has built up an extra two months’ supply of champagne! However, such actions are costly for firms and impossible for some which might lack the space or cash to build up stocks. Another area of concern is our import of fresh food. At present the ratio of fresh: frozen food imports is 9:1 and a result of ‘no deal’ might be to increase the proportion of frozen food imports. Although this seems relatively straight-forward, it would require an increase in refrigeration capacity, not currently available.

No deal will mean that tariffs are placed on UK goods entering the EU so, for example, the 54% of UK car exports which go to the EU would face a 10% tariff, making them less attractive to EU consumers, and thereby reducing sales and employment in the car industry and possibly even encouraging firms, particularly foreign ones, to relocate from the UK to the EU to avoid the tariffs. At a recent FT conference on Brexit, the Senior Vice President of Honda Europe suggested that, as well as tariff barriers,  non-tariff barriers, such as the need for physical inspections of  vehicles being exported and components being imported at customs, would be equally important for the company, which operates a ½ day Just In Time production model with components being delivered straight to the production line. The Economist recently reported on the BMW Mini plant in Oxford where 200 lorries deliver 4 million parts to the factory EACH DAY. Therefore, border delays of even a few hours  might impact significantly on their ability to produce smoothly. Because of the threat of a hard border, some UK chemical and pharmaceutical firms are considering opening a second testing facility in the EU so that its products can be sold there without difficulty. Such adjustments are costly and will be passed on to consumers in due course.

Supporters of a no deal see our departure from the EU as a matter of moving from EU to WTO rules on trade, reinforced by our ability to sign free trade deals with many countries. (It is worth noting that we have not yet been able to negotiate independently all the deals that we, as members of the EU, had with 3rd countries). However the CBI point out that this would mean both taxes on our exports and us levying taxes on imports from the EU. Also important will be such things as checks on food products which will be introduced on our exports. Another concern is that the WTO focuses more on trade in goods than in services, which has explained why a number of financial institutions are establishing bases in the EU. Interestingly, the FT conference referred to above was partially sponsored by Paris and Luxembourg, both using the opportunity to promote themselves as attractive places to set up. We do not know the effect which ‘no deal’ would have on sterling, with some talking of it even dropping to parity with the dollar, as holders of short-term sterling assets sell them. Bearing in mind that a 10% fall in sterling causes an increase in inflation of 2%, the effect of such a steep fall would lead to significant falls in real incomes. We also do not know whether the Bank of England would increase interest rates in order to protect sterling or cut them to boost GDP if a recession loomed (and the scope for the latter is seriously limited by their current low levels).

Even the impact of Mrs May’s deal, which involves maintaining the single market in goods but not services, is not totally clear since although the documentation on the UK’s departure is extensive, it is not clear exactly what will happen for the UK when the transition period ends in December 2020, since there is still much to be decided, hence, for example, the need for a backstop to prevent a physical border between Northern Ireland and Eire if a trade deal is not signed.

In the last two weeks, a number of estimates have been published. The National Institute for Economic and Social Research, a well-established think tank, suggests that Mrs May’s deal will leave the UK’s GDP per head 3% smaller by 2030 than if we had remained in the UK. Another think tank, ‘The UK in a changing Europe’, published research from the Institute of Fiscal Studies, LSE and King’s College, suggesting GDP per head would be between 1.9% and 5.5% smaller by 2030, depending upon what happens to productivity. The Bank of England and the Treasury have also published forecasts. The latter looks at the impact on the UK economy in 2035, 15 years from the end of the transition period (a longer period than the previous two forecasts) and suggests that, under a no deal scenario, GDP might drop by 10.7% while under Mrs May’s deal, the fall would only be between 0.2% and 1.4%.

A different option which is being proposed by Nick Boles MP is called ‘Norway for Now’  or ‘Norway Plus’. This involves the UK negotiating to join the European Free Trade Association (where we have free trade with the member countries but, unlike a customs union, there is no common external tariff). We would also negotiate a customs deal with the EU. This would allow unrestricted access to the EU market but would allow the UK to escape the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, be outside the Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies and pay less to the EU than at present. However EU immigration would not be restrictable unless there were significant problems and we would not be able to sign trade deals with other countries outside EFTA and the EU.

All that is clear at the moment is that nothing is clear! Hopefully, after 11th December, we might know a little more but even that is doubtful.

Trade Wars

In an attempt to escape from the latest Brexit news, this week’s blog examines the trade war between the USA and China. Until recently, economics textbooks glossed over tariffs, quotas and protectionism; they were mentioned as possible approaches to improving a country’s balance of payments but it was accepted that although there were customs unions in existence, such as the EU, with a common external tariff (i.e. all products entering the union paid the same tariff, irrespective of where the goods entered the customs union, tariffs were not changed frequently as an economic weapon. This was because the accepted view among economists and (most) politicians was that world free trade was beneficial, allowing goods and services to be made  in the countries most suited to their production (lowest opportunity cost in economic terms) and then traded for products made overseas, thereby allowing consumers to benefit from lower prices and an increased standard of living.

However all of that has changed with the imposition of tariffs by the USA on Chinese goods and retaliation by China, followed by retaliation for the retaliation by the USA! The crisis began in July, after months of negotiations, when the USA imposed 25% tariffs on an initial $34 billion of Chinese goods, including machinery, electronics, cars and computer components such as hard drives.  China then retaliated and the following month the USA placed 25% tariffs on a further $16bn of Chinese goods which were matched by reciprocal Chinese tariffs on American goods such as cars. Then in September, President Trump imposed further 10% tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods and has threatened to increase this to 25% next year. China has retaliated with tariffs on $60 billion of US goods. The rationale for the American tariffs was two-fold – firstly that, according to President Trump, China had an “unfair” trade surplus in goods of $376 billion with the USA, thereby hitting American jobs, and secondly that China engaged in unfair trading practices, frequently involving foreign firms being forced to share their technology with Chinese ones.

The effects of the tariffs will depend on many factors. It is possible that businesses might find a way round the tariffs. For example, US soya producers have complained about the tariffs on their products but there is already evidence that they have been able to increase their exports to Brazil and Brazilian firms have exported to China. However many US businesses have expressed concern over the rise in costs of components imported from China and the effect they will have on consumer prices in the US. On the other hand, President Trump has argued that the tariffs will persuade US firms to produce more in the US to avoid the tariffs but others suggest that US firms will still produce overseas, where manufacturing costs are cheaper, but in countries other than China. A key factor will be the price elasticity of demand for the goods affected. This will determine whether producers can pass on the tariff,  whether they will have to absorb some or all of it and whether they will need to cut output with subsequent effects on output and employment.

What does the future hold?

“Accurate predictions” and “economists” are not words which always go together and the longer the time period, the less accurate are predictions likely to be. Last year, it was predicted that driverless cars would soon be with us and we would be summoning our driver-free Uber with as little worry as ordering a take-away via Deliveroo. However, following the death of a 49-year-old woman in Arizona, as a result of a collision with an Uber vehicle being driven in autonomous mode, (with a human behind the wheel), both Uber and Toyota have suspended trials and a number of American states are reviewing their attitude to trials of driverless vehicles.

A worry which has been with us for longer is the impact of technological progress and more recently AI, on employment prospects. Keynes, in 1930, during the Great Depression, wrote an article predicting a 15 hour working week by 2030. For him, this was not a worry since he suggested that the average person would be significantly richer in 2030 than in 1930, since businesses would still be producing goods and services and workers enjoying their increased leisure. However, he did raise the possibility of technological unemployment where the fall in demand for labour from technological progress was greater than the increased demand for labour needed to produce new goods and services. Trying to estimate the costs and benefits of new technology in terms of employment has been a problem since the Luddites in the 19th century – English textile workers and weavers who destroyed machinery which they thought would take their jobs away. On the other hand, technological optimists see the arrival of robots as an advantage since they will allow tedious, repetitive jobs to be undertaken by machines while the humans focus on rewarding, creative areas.

Examples support both views. The rise of online shopping is a cause of the decline in high street retailers. However internet shopping has created jobs in warehouses for workers to fulfil orders and among van drivers. But, in the future, will the goods ordered be collected from the shelves by robots and delivered by drones? What will happen to the number of workers in supermarkets if the technology used in Amazon’s cashless store becomes more widespread? There is a consensus that the types of jobs most at risk are those which are routine and repetitive while the safest are those which involve creativity, judgement and manual dexterity. An area which should be secure, and in which the UK is currently strong, is the creative sector, which covers such things as advertising, film and television programme making, architecture, and fashion, employing two million people and contributing over 5% to GDP. One might also think that teaching is a safe occupation since, so they tell me, it involves judgement, empathy and creativity. But if the school of the future is based round individualised learning with students working in large open-plan spaces, supported by “facilitators”, will so many people be needed? How long before we get the department blog generated with no human involvement? How do we take account of the jobs which have not yet been created?

What is clear is that there will need to be resources put into re-training existing workers to allow those who have lost their jobs to move into new areas and, more importantly, those entering school in September, will need to be taught to be adaptable and creative so they can learn new skills, rather than being trained in the skills in use today.

TRADE WAR 2

It is rare to see two successive blog posts on the same topic but it is also rare for an economic issue to receive the attention which President Trump’s proposed tariffs on steel and aluminium have attracted. Since the last post, Gary Cohn, his chief economic adviser, has resigned in protest at the decision, swaying the political balance in the White House from supporters of free trade towards protectionists, the EU has added to its list of potential targets for retaliation to include peanut butter, Bourbon, Florida orange juice and Harley Davidson motorcycles, and President Trump has continued to threaten retaliation against the retaliation, talking of tariffs against EU car exports. There have also been comments in the newspapers looking back to the 1930s and the protectionist measures imposed by the USA as a way of helping them escape the Great Depression, which served only to make the world situation worse.

The language of the debate (if that is what it can be called) continues to be confused. On the one hand President Trump argues that the tariffs are justified by WTO rules on the grounds of national security, a legitimate reason for imposing tariffs; the argument being that steel is an important product for the defence industries. However the main exporters of steel to the USA are the EU (the largest), Canada, Mexico and South Korea – hardly countries which are likely to go to war with the USA. China does not feature among the list of the major steel exporters to the USA. Furthermore some of the steel exported is highly specialised and not even manufactured in the USA.

While talking of national security as a justification, President Trump simultaneously continues to refer to the need to reduce the US balance of payments deficit, arguing that the deficit is “BAD” and the fault of foreign countries. Not only has the deficit occurred in part because foreign producers can produce more cheaply than US ones, it has also allowed the US to consume more than it produces and, subsequently, living standards have risen. Foreign trade is not a zero-sum game – both deficit and surplus countries benefit from greater trade.

So how has a country like the USA (and the UK) been able to run such a large and persistent deficit? This is because foreign governments, banks and individuals have been willing to hold dollars and US assets rather than change them back into their own currency. In the same way that a generous parent’s continual lending allows their children to spend more than they earn, the UK current account deficit might be partially financed by a financial account surplus caused by rich foreigners and businesses placing money earned from selling to the UK in UK banks or buying property in London, UK shares or government bonds. The same applies to the US, but is reinforced by the additional benefit the USA has which is that the dollar is so widely used for international trade and as a reserve currency.

The exchange rate and the economy.

The traditional view of a fall in the value of a developed country’s currency was that it would lead to an increase in the value of their exports and a fall in the value of their imports, hence improving the balance of payments and, via the resultant increase in aggregate demand, cause an increase in employment and growth.

However the above analysis needs considerable qualification. Although a fall in the value of a currency will almost always increase the VOLUME of exports and reduce the VOLUME of imports, whether the values change in the same way will depend on the elasticities of demand for exports and imports. For a developing country whose exports are commodities with an inelastic demand, a fall in the value of the currency might worsen its balance of payments. Over time the UK’s exports have moved up-market and therefore it can be argued that they have become less price sensitive since factors such as design and quality become more important.

Secondly, the analysis assumes that firms can increase their production of exports to meet higher demand and this will depend on the state of the domestic economy, the availability of labour, raw materials and components. This is unlikely to be easy in the short term and economists talk of the “J Curve effect” whereby a devaluation initially leads to a worsening balance of payments as quantities of exports and imports do not change much, possibly because of long-term contracts or the difficulties in increasing output of export and import-substitutes and, only over time, will the balance of payments improve. While this might not apply to tourism, where people can switch their holiday destinations relatively quickly, high tech exports and imports of manufactured exports will be much slower to adjust. Firms need to take a view as to the permanence of any change in the exchange rate. In my last post, I wrote that the £:$ exchange rate fluctuated from $1.71 in July 2014, $1.32 after the Brexit vote, then to $1.21 in January, 2017, and was at $1.38 (20th January 2018) but at the time of writing (27th January 2018) it had risen to $1.42. Firms planning long-term contracts will need to take a view as to the likely long-term exchange rate and largely ignore short-term fluctuations.

We should also not forget the downside of a devaluation which is that imports become more expensive and therefore living standards fall. Not only does one’s foreign holiday cost more, but imported finished products and anything using imported components or raw materials becomes more expensive, with the increase in price depending upon how easily the supplier can pass on the increased cost to the buyer. As products become more complex and firms take advantage of globalisation, the supply chain becomes longer and there is a greater likelihood of imports being involved in some in the final product. Thus an increase in UK exports of goods is very likely to require an increase in imports needed to make our exports and some of the increased competitiveness will be lost by the higher cost of imported components and raw materials.

Recent examination of the exchange rate and UK trade in goods might suggest that the exchange rate  has a significant impact. In the last year the volume of UK goods exported rose almost 9% which would imply that the fall in sterling post Brexit has had a positive impact until one reflects that UK imports have increased by 7% during the same period, despite their increase in price. What this shows is that the exchange rate is simply one of many factors affecting the demand for imports and exports and we cannot ignore factors such as quality, income, interest rates or anything else which changes the desire to consume goods and services.