Can paradise be found in prudence?

Bloomberg: A Polynesian Paradise Sacrificed Its Economy to Stay Virus-Free

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-26/polynesian-cook-islands-sacrificed-its-economy-to-end-coronavirus

We know the knee-jerk reactions…

  • The Right – That horrible government, treading on their people’s liberties, shutting down their economy like that…

  • The Left – That wonderful government, making the decision for their people because their people wouldn’t have known any better, regardless of economic impact…

We’ll take no particular position on the role of government in this particular case. We simply read this article to mean – the less debt you have, and the more savings you prudently accumulated while times were good, the more flexibility you’ll have to make a choice, either way. And isn’t choice what it’s really all about?

Choice, coconut drinks, and no central bank. Sounds like paradise to me.

With no central bank of its own, the policy options are limited. A relatively low debt-to-GDP ratio of 21% gives the country room to borrow, Brown says. The government is in talks with the Asian Development Bank and the New Zealand government to provide loans until border restrictions are relaxed and visitors can return.

During the recent run of good economic times, Puna’s government had the foresight to bank NZ$56.7 million in an emergency reserve fund to be used during downturns or to recover from cyclones. The funds helped pay for the stimulus measures.

Or to just cut right to the important parts…

“no central bank of its own”

“relatively low debt-to-GDP ratio”

“foresight to bank NZ$56.7 million in an emergency reserve fund”

To be fair, we do, of course, hope all the individual business owners (including ones like the Napa family and their Kiikii Inn & Suites) in the Cook islands had also been just as prudent with their savings.

“I thought the same thing as everybody else: What are we going to do?” says Napa, 59, recalling the moment he found out there would be no more guests arriving at the motel. “I was just gearing up for busy season.”

Thanks to Emmanuel Samoglou writing for Bloomberg BusinessWeek for chronicling this inadvertent case of prudence being the ticket to paradise – at least in relative terms?

Tagged : / / / /

It’s ALWAYS about the economy, stupid.

As James Carville said back in 1992 to help Bill Clinton (D) prevail over George H.W. Bush (R) in what now, looking back, seems like a downright quaint presidential election during much simpler times – “it’s the economy, stupid”.

That part still hasn’t changed much. What may have changed since then is how much more faith people seem to be putting in (D)s and (R)s to help shape their destiny, solve all their problems, and determine their ability to lead a more fulfilling life going forward. It’s as if everyone’s looking for a deity (or a scapegoat), and few can think of more than two places where they might find it.

We’re going to keep this simple (well, sorta).

For all the horrors taking place in Minneapolis this week, the shamefully unfortunate circumstances in NYC’s Central Park, the role of “Jack vs. Zuck” in determining who should be allowed to say what, and of course our ongoing response to COVID-19 (and the renewed symbolism of the “face mask”), it’s clear that we all have a tendency to get caught up (and probably too easily) in the emotion-driven “political” themes of the moment that pit one against another, diametrically. Whether it’s black vs. white, rich vs. poor, male vs. female, cisgender vs. transgender – you name it, it’s cool to pick a side. At least, it seems comforting. Once you know which side you’re on, you then know which side to blame, which then makes it easier to let your anger out because you have somewhere you can direct it. And letting your anger out feels good, because lord knows there’s plenty to be angry about these days.

The problem? Painting the world in such simple colors is ultimately a recipe for mass misunderstanding, and a world plagued by mass misunderstanding is much more likely to focus on all the wrong problems – or at least, be distracted from the ones that might actually matter most if we could solve them.

Is “mass misunderstanding” just an unfortunate by-product of an inherently complex world clashing with the inevitable limitations of human nature, or is it a conscious policy and a deliberate attempt to mislead and misdirect? We’re not sure, but Fed Chairman Jay Powell seemed to offer an inadvertent perspective (by accident?) during his briefing earlier this morning that at least has to get you thinking: Why all the misunderstanding? Because you have better things to do…

To diminish nothing of the very real scourges of racism, sexism, and other “isms” that affect some of us more than others (as we once talked about here), it seems there’s at least a remotely legitimate chance that some people might be trying to keep you from focusing too much on at least one particularly universal scourge (or at the very least they don’t seem to mind if your mind wanders a bit), and it’s the one scourge that at least indirectly touches and influences almost all of the others, whether we realize it or not. That, of course, would be any such scourge that denies or prevents the concept of “value” itself being related to the things you actually value.

Or, in other words – who’s in charge of the “value” of the very dollars you get paid in for your work (love or hate what you do), that you use to buy things (whether you need them or not), that you use to sell things (whether you wanted to or not), that you use in any transactions that help you pursue your own hopes and dreams (whatever they may be), and that you probably use to calculate your very own personal “net worth”, however high or low? Hint: It’s not you, it’s not your parents, it’s not your employer, it’s not your employer’s CEO, it’s probably not your “rich” neighbor, it’s probably not even just a specific race or gender (apparent correlations aside), and it’s usually not even your President (though some presidents end up having a little more influence than others). Nor is it even the God you might pray to, even if your God is Plutus or Mammon. Nope, it’s even simpler than that.

It’s a single, private, central bank.

Wondering who determines the value of your life savings if you saved it in dollars? Them. Wondering who ultimately determines how much a given “need or want” – whether it a be a house, a car, a vacation (especially one you took out a loan for) – or a donation to your favorite cause – or the very food on your table – could be worth relative to your life’s work and the values you stand for? Yup, them too. Now, we’re not here to debate whether their intentions are nefarious or not (we’ll leave that to the genuine conspiracy theorists whose theories we have no way of proving or disproving on this blog). We’re just here to call attention to the fact that they are, well, central. And if something is central and you haven’t been invited to have a seat at the table (not unlike that whole “Jack vs. Zuck” thing?) that means you don’t have a say either way.

There’s an old quote attributed to Mayer Amschel Rothschild (that, admittedly, no one seems to know for sure if he actually said or not)…

“Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws”

Maybe good ol’ Mayer Amschel (or at least whoever quoted him) was just trying to make a point? You know, just a little 18th-century snark?

In any case, it doesn’t seem like we’ve learned much since then. And it doesn’t sound like our friend Jay Powell is particularly interested in seeing us start now.

All the while, arguments like #DemocratsTheEnemyWithin vs. #RepublicansAreDestroyingAmerica keep getting more attention than things like #debt vs. #savings, #SoundMoney vs. #UBI, and other things that actually matter.

It’s ALWAYS about the economy, stupid. Especially when you realize that most of the things we fight over have to do with our ability, as individuals, to live out our values – whatever they are, and however we got them.

Or are you happy to keep sitting at the kids’ table arguing over your favorite colors while the “grownups” at the central table decide what you get to eat for dinner? (if you get to eat at all…)

Another possibility: We need more tables?


***Disclaimer***
We have quoted “Tweets” from select “Twitter Users” in this story because we thought the views & opinions expressed by those “Twitter Users” were relevant to the topics being discussed in this story. These “Twitter Users” have no affiliation with the Economorals blog, and we make no assumptions about any particular political, religious, or other affiliations of any kind that may or may not be held by any of the “Twitter Users” quoted, nor the specific validity or credibility of what they say. Again, we just thought a few “Twitter Users” had some genuinely interesting words & ideas to share in the context of this story’s main themes, and since they’ve already shared those words & ideas in the public domain, we wanted to share them again here too. Because if there’s one “market” we can all hopefully agree on, it’s the “marketplace of ideas”.

Tagged : / / / / / /

When even the Fed is warning on asset prices (or when the rules just keep on changin’)

Bloomberg Law: Fed Warns of Significant Hit to Asset Prices If Crisis Grows

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/banking-law/fed-warns-of-significant-hit-to-asset-prices-if-pandemic-grows

When even the Fed is warning of a “significant hit to asset prices”, is that a sign we should be worried? Or are they just warming us up for even more #QE? (in which case, you might want to re-think who should be doing the worrying…)

An excerpt from Bloomberg Law’s coverage of the Fed’s recent statement which, at face value, sounds awfully logical:

“Asset prices remain vulnerable to significant price declines should the pandemic take an unexpected course, the economic fallout prove more adverse, or financial system strains reemerge,” the Fed said in the report. It cited commercial real estate as being particularly susceptible to falling valuations because “prices were high relative to fundamentals before the pandemic,” and there have been severe disruptions in the hospitality and retail industries.

In the old days, “asset prices remain vulnerable to significant price declines” would mean #savers get rewarded (by waiting, prudently, to buy low and re-establish equilibrium in markets at more appropriate valuations) while #debtors take the hit – and perhaps deservedly so, because “prices were high relative to fundamentals before the pandemic”.

In the new (or at least recent) normal, “asset prices remain vulnerable to significant price declines” would simply be cover-speak for ::printing more money to ensure asset prices don’t decline:: which would mean #savers get duped (by waiting, apparently foolishly, for their savings to be devalued) while #debtors get rescued and rewarded for their irresponsible behavior of having driven up prices to be “high relative to fundamentals” in the first place.

What will the very latest version of “normal” turn out to be?

Can someone just tell us what the rules will be once and for all?

Or is it time to walk away and find another game to play altogether?

Tagged : / / / / / / /

Math is universal. Income thresholds are not.

Oh, the trouble with thresholds. Whether we’re talking tax brackets, or in this case, stimulus checks. It remains to be seen how (or if) things will actually play out with all the various proposals for a “second round” of stimulus in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, but however unlikely it may be to come to actual fruition, we just had to call out this particular proposal as described by Alison King for NBC10 News in Boston as an example of how “glossing over” the math can lead to, well, “confusing” outcomes…

NBC10 Boston: Markey Joins Sanders and Harris to Call for Plan to Provide Americans With Monthly Income During Crisis

https://www.nbcboston.com/news/coronavirus/markey-joins-sanders-in-harris-to-call-for-plan-to-provide-americans-with-monthly-income-during-crisis/2122610/

“The Monthly Economic Support Act would provide $2,000 each month to people earning $120,000 or less annually.”

So, let’s do the math. $2,000/month over 12 months would be equal to $24,000/year. An extra $24k/year in your pocket? Not bad! Except, we noticed it would kinda stink for you if you happen to find yourself already in the income bracket between $121k-$143k.

The easy answer for some, at quick glance, would be to say “you’re really complaining about people who already make a six-figure income? They’ll be just fine!! They’re already “rich”!!! (we can debate the definition of “rich” another day…)

Clearly, there were a few “Twitter Users” who missed the point right out of the gate…

OK, we get it, it would only “stink” in very relative terms, sure, and for that reason, if you’re already at $144k+ then even we’ll suggest you should probably just be happy you’re already there.

That said…

In the particular scenario described here, the $120k salary guy nets out with $144k on the year, while the $121k salary guy nets out with – well, $121k. Maybe the second guy should have asked for a $1k pay cut first? (or at least a few more weeks vacation). Silliness.

It’s a fair enough point – no one making that much money should really be “complaining” either way, at least not yet (we’ll see where inflation takes us…) But the point is, thresholds are dangerous because they’re completely arbitrary. And when things are completely arbitrary (or worse, opportunistically targeted at well-connected friends in the case of Wall Street bailouts, or just as opportunistically targeted at impressionable would-be voters of certain political leanings in the case of “stimulus checks for the people”), there’s bound to be #moralhazard somewhere. At the least, we’re once again playing “god” with the very definition of value – and it’s not like you had a say, either way.

Sure, maybe we’re over-emphasizing the plight of the $121k salary guy who ends up with $23k less at the end of the year than his $120k salaried counterpart, because someone (his employer?) had valued his work $1k higher before all the “stimulus” talk started (or maybe he was just a better salary negotiator – and ha, isn’t payback just a bitch for him now…)

The main point here is – we don’t like when people mess with the rules in the middle of the game. The laws of math never actually change, but if we’re going to leverage those laws to help apply the concept of value in human society, we ought to be more careful about how we try to manipulate them.

Full-on #UBI – or the idea of Universal Basic Income that’s been tried in places like Finland and enthusiastically touted by the #YangGang in recent months and years – would actually be more fair if fairness is the goal. No artificial thresholds. Scale from the bottom up. Everyone gets the $2,000 check. Purely progressive. Those with the least need it the most, and therefore each citizen would experience a net-impact that’s consistently proportionate to his.her current economic standing – from the guy who manages to scrounge together $500 a month panhandling on the streets and would stand to see his fortunes rise by 400%, to the one already pulling in a cool million each month (we’re not sure how he’s doing it) and will see his fortunes rise by just a measly 0.2%. The beauty – no flawed human being had to decide where the “thresholds” were. We let the math speak for itself…

And one would think that “letting the math speak for itself” would be a solution that even modern liberals and libertarians can agree on – while perhaps continuing to debate whether the preferred implementation of said solution is via bottom-up inflation (i.e. #UBI) or programmable sound money (i.e. #Bitcoin, #Ethereum) or maybe some weird combination of the two we haven’t entirely thought of yet…


***Disclaimer***
We have quoted “Tweets” from select “Twitter Users” in this story because we thought the views & opinions expressed by those “Twitter Users” were relevant to the topics being discussed in this story. These “Twitter Users” have no affiliation with the Economorals blog, and we make no assumptions about any particular political, religious, or other affiliations of any kind that may or may not be held by any of the “Twitter Users” quoted, nor the specific validity or credibility of what they say. Again, we just thought a few “Twitter Users” had some genuinely interesting words & ideas to share in the context of this story’s main themes, and since they’ve already shared those words & ideas in the public domain, we wanted to share them again here too. Because if there’s one “market” we can all hopefully agree on, it’s the “marketplace of ideas”.

Tagged : / / /

Is it worth it to be careful when carelessness pays just as well?

It’s refreshing to know there are at least some companies that still see prudent financial & risk management practices (i.e. saving for rainy day) as relevant to their ability to operate as a going concern. Sounds almost quaint in this era of #Fed bailouts, #QE, and rampant #moralhazard.

We’ve added a few [COMMENTS] from an “Economoralist” perspective to the excerpts below from Nina Trentmann’s recent piece for the Wall Street Journal. Take them or leave them.

WSJ: Some Companies Began Preparing for a Downturn Before the Pandemic

https://www.wsj.com/articles/some-companies-began-preparing-for-a-downturn-before-the-pandemic-11588637143

“Finance chiefs were preparing for a downturn [GOOD IDEA!] long before the coronavirus roiled the global economy; however, few expected it to be as swift or severe. [OK, FAIR ENOUGH]

“After 11 years, we were expecting a slowdown or a recession,” [PROBABLY SMART?] said Max Brodén, chief financial officer of Aflac Inc., an insurance company.

More executives were being proactive in planning for a recession; [ALWAYS A GOOD IDEA] however, they weren’t as aggressive in tackling “the extreme downside that we are seeing now,” [OK, FAIR ENOUGH]

“We had seen an expansion that had gone on for more than 10 years,” said Linda Huber, the company’s chief financial officer. “Market conditions don’t go on forever.” [NOPE, THEY USUALLY DON’T]

“When the sun is shining, you plan and take advantage of that,” Ms. Huber said. [GOOD ADVICE!]

Tagged : / /

The kids are angry because they’re not getting “value” – are any of us?

We knew the college kids were angry, but as Bob Van Voris and Janet Lorin described in their recent piece for Bloomberg, we could be in for yet a whole new round of conversations about how we “value” things.

In this case, it’s the value of that good ol’ college education – you know, the one everyone’s been demanding student loan forgiveness on in recent years as it was.

But, as the kids are debating the “value” of their experiences in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, let’s not forget, also, that a big part of the reason those tuition bills were able to reach numbers like “$70,000/year” in the first place (all the “value” they were bringing notwithstanding) – well, you guessed it – #moredebt.

Not unlike in the case of the housing market and other types of assets over the past two decades, when monetary policy remains loose, interest rates remain near zero, and #QE rules the day, it’s easy to convince everyone they should take on #moredebt because low interest rates! And “because low interest rates”, the actual price (in theory, the actual value) of the asset, good, or service, can be artificially inflated to no real end (as can the profits that flow to the owners of said assets and those who benefit from the production of said goods & services – whether they be real estate speculators, bailed-out corporations and private equity firms, or tenured college professors & administrators…)

Now, we’re all for profits flowing to those who create genuine value in our economy & society – as best determined by the exchange of value someone is willing to offer for whatever it is they want in return. The problem is, whenever the fuzzy math of #moredebt is involved, that means your values are most likely not being considered… (especially if you were someone who played by the rules, worked hard, saved money, sacrificed time, and hoped to be able to exchange the value of your hard work & sacrifice for something of genuine sound value to you in return…)

Bloomberg: Angry Undergrads Are Suing Colleges for Billions in Refunds

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-01/angry-undergrads-studying-online-sue-for-billions-in-refunds

“To justify annual prices that can top $70,000 a year, colleges have long advertised their on-campus experience…”

What students are saying:

“I am missing out on everything that Drexel’s campus has to offer”

“…making claims of “unjust enrichment,” arguing that it’s unfair for the schools to profit from services they didn’t provide.”

“…seeking compensation for what is known as “diminution of value,” or the difference between the worth of an on-campus education and one delivered online.”

What colleges are saying:

“…called the suit against it “misdirected and wholly without merit.”

“…the crisis hasn’t changed the “core value” of its education.”

We’ll anxiously stay tuned to see how this particular series of battles plays out.

Tagged : / / /

Bad things happen. How we respond makes all the difference.

Pandemics, natural disasters, wars, recessions, depressions… sometimes we can’t easily control those things. Sometimes we have no choice but to simply let them run their course. Sometimes we wouldn’t really want to interfere with their course even if we thought we could.

When it comes to the economy, though, there’s always a choice. In this case, as Bloomberg’s Ben Steverman writes, the choice (or at least the outcome of those choices) is simple – more inequality, or less inequality.

The decisions we make that lead to one outcome or another, even if indirectly, have much to do with the things we value in the first place, or at least, the things those making the decisions happen to value. Are your values aligned with theirs?

Bloomberg: The Pandemic Will Reduce Inequality—or Make It Worse

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-04-29/how-will-the-coronavirus-pandemic-affect-inequality

“The Black Death took a highly stratified medieval society and turned it upside down. With 75 million dead, Europe’s wealthy landowners couldn’t find enough people to tend their fields. When peasants—the essential workers of the day—demanded higher pay, the elites of the 14th century fought back with punitive laws, forced labor, and taxes. Even so, wages for the lowliest workers soared. In rural England, they doubled.”

“For now, the most obvious guide to what comes next isn’t the Black Death, which precipitated the demise of European feudalism, but the Great Recession, which had more or less the opposite effect. In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, inequality soared to heights not seen since the early part of the last century. At first, elites feared that much of their wealth would be wiped out in a globally synchronized market crash, à la 1929. But central banks pumped out trillions of dollars as monetary stimulus, markets recovered, and what followed may have been the best decade in history for the superwealthy.”

Tagged : / / / /

Time to “Go Kondo” on the economy? It might depend who you ask.

It’s a good idea in theory. Few would probably argue with the idea that sometimes it just feels like our world has become needlessly complex – what, with all the technology, “always on” media, political & cultural discord, social tension, and of course things like credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations. What happened to the simple things that the “everyman” could understand and appreciate?

The problem is, like most things in life, once you start to peel it back, you realize even “simplicity” might not be so simple. Why? Because we don’t all value the same things. For some, eliminating “stuff” and creating a more “Zen” like atmosphere at home might fit the bill. For others, it might be the choice between “having it all” (i.e. career, family, friends) vs. having to pick and choose in order to focus on one direction at the expense of another. For yet others, it could be a simple case of better time management. And for some, literally, it would be the seemingly simple question of “why can’t everyone else just agree with me and live the way I think they should? Then everything would be just fine.” (we’ll digress on that point).

Simplicity might be in the eye of the beholder. What if I wanted to keep all my stuff, but “Kondo” all the moral hazard in our system that makes it harder for responsible savers & investors to buy the stuff they want via the fruits of their hard work and prudent risk-taking?

What if the simple ability to open & operate a small business in my preferred small town so I could serve the local population with the simple goods & services they want is all I aspired to do in order to live out my values? And what if I had played by all the rules, worked hard “roughing it” at jobs I didn’t particularly care for along the way, sacrificed the expensive, exotic vacations and debt-fueled purchases of big homes and cars, all so I could save up enough money to buy myself that independent lifestyle using the simple math of profit/loss and price/earnings? (well, as long as these guys didn’t show up first…)

Never mind all the complexity associated with trying to “value” an asset in the first place in this crazy Fed-manipulated age we live in, but as a small business owner, imagine trying to navigate the process of getting a PPP loan while you’re at it? Probably not the definition of simplicity.

Nonetheless, the below is a good, relevant piece written by @andreaskluth via Bloomberg Opinion. As you read through, think about whether your economic system is “sparking joy” for you.

Bloomberg Opinion: This Pandemic Is an Opportunity For Radical Simplification

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-25/coronavirus-pandemic-is-an-opportunity-for-radical-simplification

“A reset to what? My guess is that it’ll amount to a great simplification. A simplification of our lives, priorities, schedules, memberships, finances, relationships and maybe even world views. But also a simplification of our societies. That’s because one of the side effects of Covid-19 is to expose the accumulation over decades — at least in the wealthy West — of untenable complexity in the individual, political and economic spheres of life. “

“The proof includes the stunning success of somebody like Marie Kondo, a Japanese lifestyle guru who promises to help unclutter your home.  In practice, Kondo wants you to look at all your stuff and keep asking: “Does it spark joy?” Usually, the answer is no, and out it goes. “

“Collapse isn’t necessarily as scary as it sounds, by the way. It’s merely a society’s rapid and involuntary simplification. “

Tagged : / / /

Survival of the unfit?

There are enough jokes to go around on what businesses are considered “essential” in this age of coronavirus. In this case, sure, we can only think of one thing people are scrambling to get their hands on more than sanitizer or chicken – and that’s a boarding pass for their next Carinival cruise…

At least we know the Fed has our back.

WSJ: How Fed Intervention Saved Carnival

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-fed-intervention-saved-carnival-11587920400

“The previously unreported tale of Carnival’s rescue shows how effective the Fed has been in turning the debt spigot back on for large corporations. Carnival may still founder if tourists shun cruises over the long term, and its new debt carries a far heftier price tag than previous offerings. But the immediate survival of the company, which employs about 150,000 people, is no longer in question.”

“Elliott’s owner, Paul Singer, and others have warned that this success story comes at a cost. The Fed could be setting the U.S. economy up for a harder fall down the road, they contend, by flooding markets with cash and spurring investors to prop up firms that may not be fit to survive.”

Tagged : / /

Would you bother to play if you knew the game was rigged?

To be fair, we don’t know what the balance sheet of mom & pop Quality Electric Co. in Birmingham, Alabama might have looked like in this particular case either – but we’re guessing it couldn’t have been any worse than, say, what was about to happen to Millennium Management and ExodusPoint Capital Management. Unfortunately, in this “race to the bottom, er, bailout” we’ll probably never know for sure how the “little guys” might have fared against the “big guys” head to head, because according to BNN Bloomberg someone stepped in to pick the winners and losers before anyone even had a chance to get to the finish line…

BNN Bloomberg: Resentment grows on Main Street over bailout winners and losers

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/resentment-grows-on-main-street-over-bailout-winners-and-losers-1.1426347

“…waiting for approval of her US$40,000 small-business loan last week when the government’s first-come-first-served lending program ran out of cash.

“Smaller companies like us are probably just going to be washed under the rug”

Meanwhile….

“Some billion-dollar hedge funds, too, have benefited from quick Fed action. A number of them, including Millennium Management and ExodusPoint Capital Management…”

“The basis trade was in a position to tank… The Fed responded, limiting losses. Both Millennium and ExodusPoint declined to comment.”

So…

“…if one of the lessons of 2008 is to help Main Street as well as Wall Street, the lesson seems to be only partly learned. Americans live in two separate and unequal worlds, and the bailouts reflect this.”

“I really have no faith,” Shultz said. “I have no faith in the system. In this government. In this leadership.”

Well…

Not much new here, really. We wrote about a similar game two years ago… in case this one sounds familiar.

Tagged : / / /