Tuesday, December 19, 2017

Closing 2017: A brief review

I.-The year 2017, will probably be registered as the year which signal the beginning of the transition to a different world order. There has been an intense discussion about what lies ahead in this post globalization era. Some key developments about this issue havwe been: a.- The review about the foundations of globalization went beyond economics, as long as a global society also mean a lack of identity, or a weaker link with those values which make us all to feel either that we belong to something, or that we have those unique cultural values which every one may count on as their back up when it comes to move forward into the avenues of this century.- b.-International organizations were under keen scrutiny, and its effectiveness was questioned, as they have been unable to cope with key threats currently unsolved, such as massive inmigration, unfair trade, cyberspace weakness,climate change challenges, effectiveness of control about the nuclear proliferation risk programs .- c.- There are additional sources of global leaderships. This mean a multydimensional approach to every global issue, which allow more diversity,better human capital endowment but at the same time, it requires more flexibility to go along with global goals such as peace, better globalization, and protection of what it is left out of environment , based upon different perspectives each one as legitimate on its own, as the anothers ones.- d.- The real meaning of incoming Globalization 4.0 , is still confuse, but some guidelines are become increasingly clear: The Global economy requires countries with its laws, institutional framework and effective Government policies at home as a preliminary condition to go global.So, globalization it is not only about global markets, it is also about effective laws, institutions and policies proved to be effective, before exporting them to a global scale. e.- Consumers are the drivers of the incoming globalization, but the supply side response make the whole difference to adapt productive process to new demands.Virtual organizations such as "Amazon", "Google", or good producers such as "Zara", "Mercedes Benz", or services providers such as "Walmart" , "Facebooks", "Twiter" to mention a few ;are moving ahead to reshape markets to provide faster responses to consumers preferences, in such a way that producers and consumers mix together in a new business unit called"prosumer". f.- Global markets became better coordinated to sustain join economic growth advances. Key economics are within the area of monetary normalization process. II.- Other relevants issues in 2017 were: a.-The consequences of climate change are well ahead of any agreement already in place. This mean that the next one, is better than anyone already signed. So, the issue is not how to cope with controlling climate change,(reducing global temperatures), but how to deal with its consequences even as catasthrophic these seem appears to be. It follows that Climate change has become out of range of Governmenet actions . b.- The faster the change in productive process already in motion ,the better. New tecnologies, have made additional progress to boost the speed of such transformation which make private firms the key drivers of mitigating climate change consequences. c.- Europe as a whole (Germany, United Kingdom,Spain,Poland, Hungary, Italy and Austria), face the stress of its European Union project becoming under further scrutiny, following the current fragile situation of its main leaderships.- III,. Latin America a.- The economic growth came back as long as the global economy recovery became stronger. After an economic contraction last year, 2017 look with positive numbers in terms of economics growth (1,5% on average).- b.- The time of reforms is not over in key economies in this region. New conditions on global markets, and the past experience about the cost of not keeping the pace with its development, has made clear that the path to improve economic development, goes hand by hand with more flexible markets and better institutions.-

Saturday, November 25, 2017

Market Power

When it comes to get an approach about the real value of art pieces, there is no easy answer. Most of the time it is a matter of both imagination and perception, and usually goes beyond that, as long as they represent a moment of inspiration by an artist which has no Price because it is scarce. They are public goods. So, that is the reason because most of these pieces, are better valued at museums ,where its intrinsic value, get higher while increasing amount of people admired them. However, like any public good (parks),whether there is not any protection policy,it may be on the contrary. The local authorities in charge of The Fontana di Trevi in Rome, had to change the tourist preferences for throwing coins at it, because it did not make any good to preserve its value.So, like most of public good, art pieces depends upon local authorities policies to preserve them. But what about if someone try to buy a piece of art?.In such case, it is when prices come along, and with it the market power. There is private market for art pieces,because these are profitable alternative for long run investment .The expected benefit of these investments, may be more stable than financial assets whose market value is affected by both market fluctuations and cycles,either up or down depending on how every financial assets fit with the outcome of such a fluctuations. Some of them , may not survive because its value evaporate as the business activities which are based on , do not longer stay on after after the economic fluctuations are over. Art pieces instead, are somehow above time, because they are not tied to anything by itself. This means that at time goes by, its value will go higher, because it become more relevant the scarcity of the talented necessary to create it .If such a talents were widely available, prices of art pieces will be easier to set by customer interested to buy them. It follows that anyone who may be looking for investment alternatives, the arts pieces are a good ones. That was the historic case for the Da Vinci´s "Salvatori Mundi", which was sold by more tan USD 400 million (USD 450 million), 400% higher than its previous Price.This Price came about after the latest two or three buyers pushed it higher .These are the situations what markets are for. Let asume that throughout social networks ,arise the question of who would like to have such a valuable piece of art, and what potential customers would be willing to do such as to get the painting.Probably thousands if not millions would be ready to go for it at any cost.But how to solve the problem that there is only one piece of such art piece?.The Market provide the solution by setting a Price.Of course only one customer could afford the Price, but the allocation process went smoothly, and nobody who was left out, would complain foul. That represent the social value of markets. Its ability to provide solutions which otherwise it would be hard to come by without high costs.As long as markets are the driven force of the allocation process, the outcomes will match societu expectations about its welfare preferences. However, it is well known that markets not always work prefectly. a.- No all customers may pay all the prices.Some are left out and then it is when eficient public policies comes along.Health and human capital decisions (education), are the usual examples . b. Markets can fail to solve the allocation problem.That is the case of common and public goods.In this case, it is also necessary to have efficient public policies, and strong institutional frameworks (laws). Thus, markets provide the first best solutions for the allocation of resources, which can not be matched by the State.However, because of price restrictions,efficient public policies must do the remaining task of making sure that society get the benefit of it.-

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

Taxes and Government (II)

The discussion about taxes and the deficit ,assumes that all government expenditures serve a necessity whose priority nodoby would dare to challenge. But what about wasted resources because of ill designed Government policies?. For instance after 2010 , most of the the Euro zone countries run increasing deficit in some cases well beyond the 3% range accepted by EU institutionality. It was not only because the private sector was still trapped in the follow up of the 2008 crisis.If that was the case the fiscal expansion would has been a compensatory one. Instead , it went well beyond that compensation because the Euro currency gave support to moral hazard behaviour on the side of Government expenditure to pursue on its own. The problem arose when those deficit had to be cut down, there was no way other than to cut governmenet expenditures .Latin america economies experience is full of over government expenditures. Thus, it seems more plausible that Government expenditures rather than taxes, matter more when it comes to keep the deficit under control.- So, tax cut does not mean higher deficit if expenditures are in line with the resources the economy is capable of producing. Under optimal condition it should be feasible that the efficient Government expenditures would be lower than the resources the ecomomy generates through taxes. How come?: Government should be focus where its social welfare impact is higher, which means it should be focused on few activites with such a profile(health ,education).Other expenditures, aside from those necessary for both internal , and external defense such as infraestructure, can be carried out by the private sector. There is not need to have high taxes , unless that the value of the services governmemt can provides means higher impact on social welfare.This has limitations, as long as private sector, create wealth while government does not.- By the same reason, taxes are negative for economic growth .W McBride, of The Tax Foundation made in 2012 a survey of 26 research about the impact of taxes on economic growth.In 23 of those articles, found that the impact was negative. Evidence on the contrary, may also be possible as long as the economy is less flexible and has lower resource mobility or high regulations standard, such that resources ara stick to a pattern with few alternatives. In such a case taxes , may be neutral or do not affect economic growth.The main conclusion would be that those economies which has a more dynamic performance, are probably the ones which get the worst impact of taxes.-

Saturday, September 30, 2017

Taxes and Government (I)

It is well known that within free market economy ,government has a complementary role to what market can not solve.Therefore , Government is in charge of public policies concerning health,education,social infrastructure(schools,hospitals,rural roads and the like),asides from those policy issues related to economic rules,institutional framework, and those linked to national and external security as well.So, it is hard to complain about these tasks, unless private sector can do it on its own.The problem is that the role of private sector is different from that of the Government , mainly it is to create wealth. Government instead deals with the issue of wealth distribution, which imply that first and above all ,there has to be a level of wealth available to distribute, otherwise it distributes poverty.It follows that government need those which provide it the means to do its distributive task. The second side of the story, is that Government does not use its own money for doing its distributive task.It is other`s people money.That it is when the trouble begins.- The ethics value of supporting the weaker and more vulnerable within society, is in a conflict with the ethic of using external sources of money (taxes) for doing so, which may has at the same time, other uses.Whether Government had its own money, it would not has this constraints, or if it is efficient and effective to allocate that money, government can somehow solve the ethics conflict.But unfortunately it is not that easy. Government has no control procedures capable enough, to make sure that from the social cost perspective , there is not any difference whether either one dollar or euro, is spent by either the government or the private sector, such that social cost would be compensated by the social benefit.-Reality shows that corruption,waste of resources,oversized of government offices, make impossible for that compensation to take place. There are studies already done about government management, which suggest that it goes far beyond its duty when it comes to spend .- The other side of the constraint for taxes , is on the economics field.Taxes are an outflows from the economic activity which means that it reduce the ability of the private sector to create wealth .Higher taxes impose a burden to the private initiative, such that it creates the incentive to evade it reducing tax collection and affecting government ability to do its task : it has fewer resources than those which needs.On the other side lower taxes avoids this problems because given government careless approach to money spending, it fit what seems a fair share to help those in need.Besides , in the global economy, the competition for financial resources facilitates a convergence toward lower taxes, otherwise arise a loss of competitiveness.- So, the discussion about reducing taxes ;it is more about the ethics approach of helping others, looking for the best approach possible.In fact ,aside of Government there are other alternatives such as private donations,NGO`s,which can become a strong support if they have the proper incentives.

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

Service sector : an alternative path for Latin America economies

When the commodities prices (metals, agriculture and energy) felt ;( 2012 - 2016) , Latin America economies had its own self- inflicted crisis. Most of these economies, were not that much well prepared, as they were for the crisis in in 2008-2009.So external debt increased, fiscal deficit get higher, and economic growth lose its momentum.- It was less than obvious to realize, how far these economics have reached on the development of the services sector. In the first five years of this century (2000-2005), services sector in Latin American economies started out to be more relevant for aggregate value process, which became more deeply active since 2010.So in the year 2011, services sector accounted for 64% of the value added ,in Latin American economies (including those of the Central America), and in 2015, 69% of the labor force; had a job in the service sector, up from 62% in the year 2010.Besides the leading area of services; are the ones which employ higher skilled human capital .Up to 20% of the best qualified human capital in these economies, have an employment in the services sector. ECLAC (2014) This structural change, is not by chance or supported in a transitory situation, like the one to replace job losses in other sector .Instead it looks to follow the usual path, associated to higher stage of economic development. (Levy, E. y Pienknagura, S. (2014)). The implications are wide and promising, given the increasing integration to global markets: a.- In the near future, Latin America economies, can reduce its vulnerability to commodity prices fluctuations.- b.- Latin America economies may be part of the Global value creation, either on its vertical (Retail management development),or the horizontal dimension(Business process outsourcing. knowledge process outsourcing)
Fuente: Latin america´s emergence in global services: a new driver of structural changes in the región? .ECLAC 2014

Saturday, July 01, 2017

The value of ideas: Individuals above the state

France has started out a new Government. But it is not the usual "in " and "out" kind of replacement , which take place regularly in that country.As far as the latest news report, both the traditional left and somehow the traditional right, lose huge amount of votes and legislators, to make them both a secondary forces within the political landscape.A whole new set of ideas has arrived to the Elysee Palace. France like most of the key European countries, has been known for its particular approach to the welfare state solution.More so, in the case of France at the time of the unique currency , the Euro which depend upon market flexibility and a complementary public policies to support both as much as social needs, as business framework at the same time, to get gains in productivity and competitiveness,which no country in the euro zone can progress without. Germany understood this in 2003, when Chancellor Gerard Schroeder was in charge of Government and implemented key reforms, heavily critized at that time, but making a turning point away from the welfare state approach, which have been fully validated years later with the lowest unemployment Germany has in 2017.Thus, unemployment in Germany; (with a decreasing trend between 2010-2015), given the refugee demand for labor,seems to be less than a problem (5,7% unemployment rate in may 2017,half the rate of that one in 2005), keeping in mind the skill of Current Government to stay the course which is working to get full employment in 2025.- Although in different moments in time, the value of that reform(2003), such as those one years earlier , of both former President of Spain Adolf Suarez (Moncloa pact, 1976) ,and Felipe Gonzalez in the eighties, while getting his country ready to become a member of the European economic community (1993)); were that those came about from leaders who made their way up to government, with skepticism about the effect of market flexibility and its ability to solve welfare issues . Markets strenght and free Enterprise to créate wealth, are not a new idea, but it is that european countries embrace it to keep the pace of prosperity. France has arrived just in the right time, to join such a formidable force already in march .- But what are the real new ideas to count on?.The world is moving toward the technology age, side by side with knowledge , wide spread information to make decisions, and different requirement for human capital to have more flexible labor skills. The multipurpose labor force requirement ,cames out directly from the incresing role of automatization, robotics and fast changes in market conditions, which do not left too much time to look for ways to keep in balance innovation driven cost. Innovation, creativity, value added do not come out from the state anymore, nor from its protectorate status.They comes out from motivated individuals, who believe in what the can look for, because opportunites are available as long as they seek for them, given their talent endowment . The rule seems to be to adjust the State to open up the path of opportunities,which otherwise are hiden from being taken by talented people.- What it is new, is the more active role individuals have in their personal lifes.Social network has increased connectivity ;such as to make old Government programs and policies to be part not only of the constraints for the economy to be more competitive, but also for individual to be themselves.- How come that in Latinamerica, we are still on the wrong side of the history concerning the role of the State?.How come that with such aan old and outdated idea about the big State as the solution, some latinoamericans are at risk of losing their liberties?. Actually there are different problems which requires different solutions, which neither government nor the state, are capable of solving them on its own.

Sunday, May 28, 2017

2008: its lasting consequences

While the financial crisis of 2008 is closer to be a close chapter , its both economics and political consequences are still in place and an open path for further development. The economics and financial consequences have made quite clear its implications: a.- Slower economic growth b.- More regulations for global Banks c.- Restrictions to a deeper globalization approach d.- Free trade in a transition to become Fair( better) trade e.- Central Banks focused on deflatonary risk All of these effects, have political implications.Some of them : a.- New risks testing the stability of the European Unión Project b.- The political dimensión of globalization, has become a constraint. Geography matter more than financial integration. c.- European Central Bank has become an unexpected power to deal with.- d.- Skepticism about the capabilites of European unión, to solve the current challenges arising from refugees flows.- e.- New threats to replace the focus from globalization on its own, to a more secure boundary for all what matters the most for it( Trade, data exchange, networks facilities, travel screening and the like) So, the world has become both more dangerous and fragile at the same time .The real issues are different global threats in the landscape, not just related to a global economic recession, but to the whole global stability. Just to mention the more urgent ones: Nuclear risk, terrorism, cyberspace war.- A sense of urgency on some of these issues , perhaps in all of them for the international community , have changed the political scenario and priorities for politicians and world leaders. Unfortunately, Latin America is not in the position to be a global political partner. Somehow it is also within the risk zone ,specially in those countries in which democracy is not longer dependent from the people will .Instead, it has become the rule of a few whose concerns are far away from the ones related to those voters who elected them. At the time that the economic consequences of the financial crisis of 2008 are closer to be overcome, with the USA economy growth on a steady track, the european unión on the path of recovery, and emerging economies, better than expected, there are pressing threats which requires coordinated solutions.-

Sunday, April 30, 2017

One Hundred days later:An economic focus

Once a Presidential election is done,It has been usual to ask both by the public opinión and the news media, about the first one hundred days in office for new Presidents.In fact, these days, there is an important attention to one in particular: The Mr Trump Presidency.- But what about the inertia any country has in real time?. What about its institutions?,What about its values and hopes?.After all winning any election is a matter of who fulfill better the voters hopes and expectations about the future and uncertainty : The one who better outline its key boundaries, and also shows the willingness to be in charge of each one respectively, becomes the leader. In such case, the more pressing issue for a new President, is about the change which is able to get 100 day later, in term of leaderships to keep the voters mood supportive for what may come next :The remaining of both Government program and its proposal. Besides, it is not an easy task to change a country in 100 days.However, this does not means that either different leaderships style ,or strategic focus, can not be set in 100 days. It follows that the achievement of any President in his first one hundred day in office, deal more than anything else, with the way leadership may change the course of a nation, for the sake of its economics progress,internal security, and stand in both the global economy and global affairs.Moreover, leadership imply to keep followers,a necessary condition to improve the support to a broader base . It does also matter whether it is a politician or a business man who is in charge of such task:Politicans has better connection with the formality of political process.They have at their disposal a whole set of resources beyond the legislative área, which includes ,lobbies, analist, journalist, think tank and the like, which reduce their transaction cost to learn about how to fit with institutions and the framework sorrounding government, such as special interest, and public opinion polls .- After the new leadership has been settled,to govern a country deeper into the following days, months and so on,requires valuable time to get the first outcomes done.Thus,aside from its historical base (USA), the first so called one hundred days ,becomes more of the draft of what becomes later the legacy, which is what really counts more. So,from an independent perspective, The Trump Presidency so far ,seems to fit properly to what it may become an enduring legacy. From the Latin America point of view instead, is more difficult to say anything while the judiciary process affecting most of their Governments, is in place, because in such a case ,the scope of working issues is more limited.- This year, the same question is about to be asked in Europe.Next week (May 7),is the turn of France. Then in september ,Germany and along 2017 other european countries as well. For every country, such a question has both different scope and relevance.However, In Europe, the issue to be settled this year, it is not a regular one,is about the future of the European Unión.So, in the coming months, and one hundred days later into his or her Government,French President and the New Chancellor in Germany, will face the same inquiry.Given the inertia and the French institutions, how come that the France and later Germany, will both have a leadership to make it better off in the years ahead?. For the economic stand point, these questions clarify policies and focus concerning either more or less government and the regulatory status in the economy. More government intervention mean more regulations, and less space for private sector and its wealth creation process.On the contrary, less government intervention means less regulation and better space for private sector to créate wealth. There is no way an economy may improve the standard of living without a sense of leadership.Leadership in economics, means where it is headed.During the south east asian economies crisis(1997), lack of leadership was a key restriction to make it broader early on, and later at some point , out of control.- Thus, in any case ,a hundred years later is still too early to call for definitive results in a new Government, more so when it faces the tough scrutiny of history.-

Saturday, March 25, 2017

The Rome Treaty: The begining of European Union

Sixty years ago, while the ashes of the war were still on the air, six countries,(Germany, Netherland, Italy, France,Belgium and Luxemburg),signed the Rome Treaty which set the begining of the current European Union. It was thought to be a reaction to years of devastating wars,as much as a path to get and sustain peace and integration among different countries. Economic development was the driven force to acomplish such a goal.Economics ties arising from financial,capital and goods markets would be strong enough to keep the integration Project alive and as a guiding light to get the promise land : prosperity and a leading role on world affairs . . Sixty years later, the outcome looks more than promising. While nationalism strugle to get through, there is still a sense of common destiny which arise from the complexity of geopolitics, the expanding boundaries for further economic growth coming out from its human capital, technology endowment and the unique strenght of its diversity .So far, the European Union still hold up to its founding spirit , very much so in a uncertain and challenging world no less so than the one it faced 60 year ago. With more than 500 million of inhabitants, USd 38000 income per capita,(2015)and the second world economy following the USA, the European Union has actually set the road for other integration experiences, if not for the global economy as a whole. An european Central Bank, political outlines based on the European council,a common currency(euro),and a shared geopolitics stands to become the bridge between east and west.- Latin america economies in particular, has always looked the European Union as its model for economic integration.In fact a few years later after the Rome treaty, it was proposed in the sixties the so called the "Andean Pact", which included all of the west coast latin american economies. Although it did not consolidate further on, it has become an starting reference case, to avoid the mistake done by its founders members. How this integration experience can be sucessful ?. Traditionally it was thought that government should has a leading role to get the economic progress as the inspired factor for staying together.The eighties external debt problem, changed that paradigm.Private firms were also a leading force for integration. The expansion of retail, insurance, transportation,banking firms and even education organizations, in the nineties made clear that employment , investment,and welfare were not only a matter of government policies, but also of wealth creation.So, there are leading Latin America economies seeking to increase its integration beyond regional trade ,(Ocean Pacific Alliance), widening its scope to financial services integration .On the east side, the "Common South Market"(Mercosur),has fostered not only capital flow, but also human capital free movement among its members.So the seeds are in place,the trend is still toward more and stronger integration. As long as the European Union goes into the path of the next ten years, there are a lot to learn.-

Friday, February 24, 2017

Fake news and economics

Recently, it has been usual to know about the publication of "fake news".Perhaps even worst, there is a new concept concerning news, which is called the "post (follow up) Thruth".Is there any relationships between these two way to inform people?.What does economics may say about it?. The post thruth, deals with the quality of the messenger to qualify any message as truth or ultimately false. It is not the quality of the message, but the quality of the messenger which make the falsehood of the message, instead of the facts which either sustain or not the thruth about the messsage.Thus, any one who say for instance that government should stay away from the economy for the purposes of well being, may be presented as an out of touch individual (either man or woman),such that to make such an argument become a complete nonsense. It follows that, any suggestion of limited government becomes such an insult for society as a whole, that only crazy individuals can believe in.So, limited government as a source of wealth become a falsehood. The outcome is to create a fake reality, which individuals have to live in ,one which excludes unconvenient truth, as much as it support convenient falsehoods, specially with those issues concerning individual responsibility, government intervention in the economy and the like.The variey goes to a wide range of topics.Like the Gresham law which explain how bad money replace the good one through inflation, "fake news" replace good private values (honesty,ethic), for public bads ones(lies,disqualification), the ones which may lead you from trusting someone, toward those who leads you not to trust anyone. In economics ,this is called adverse selection, and it implies welfare losses.- Economic analisys has a branch called the adverse selection problem, which happens when either good or services markets do not have perfect imformation about all available options ,such that consumer chose the remaining lower quality alternative . This is the case of used cars, insurance programs, where reliable participants are left out, because markets do not qualify them at their real economic value, or what it is the same , markets disqualify them as partners because it does not trust them about their own valuation. The outcome is that average quality of used cars is lower, because all good used cars are left out from the market.Nobody want to sell his or her good used car below a certain price which includes not only the mechanical aspect of it, but also the emotional ones .In the insurance case, good clients(healthier ones), are not ready to pay the more expensive charge of the average less healthy ones, leading to higher cost of insurance policies for everyone,which imply that some people may not afford an insurance policy at all.- The difference is that adverse selection, comes out from the market which is neutral about the characteristics of all of those who are in for making transaction, and as such nobody have control of its outcome.It just happens because of institucional failures, which means that institutional correction may solve the problem.In the examples above mechanical test (used cars), or hihger deductible charge to disincentive less healthy clients to get in, keeping average fee lower.This way, it is possible to correct the losses of welfare arising from adverse selection. Fake news and the follow up (post)thruth instead, means a net loss for the welfare level of society, either hard to recover or to mitigate.Besides from the economic stand point, the issue of "fake news", has nothing to do with the massive access to virtual netwotk,cell phones and the like, because it deals with the preferences of those capable of shaping massive preferences given the abstratc nature of the service(news), which becomes a public good. In the case of private good and services markets, nobody can shape simultaneously the preferences of everyone, while there are millions of customers interacting according their (own) individual preferences even with advertising along the way.-

Friday, February 03, 2017

New premises about globalization

The world is facing new definitions and premises about globalization. Since early nineties, globalization was a kind of follow up of the “End of history” assessment, very popular at that time. Democracy and fee markets stands up, as the key inputs for endless economic progress, peace and stability. There was not too much to discuss about it. Democracy spread out, such that more governments around the world (Latin America, Africa, East Europe) fit in with history. By the same token, free markets policies became the new orthodox to solve not only economic growth, but also social issues (poverty, inequality, unemployment).A few years later, it was clear that economic growth alone was not enough without complementary policies . Free trade agreement, came along as the next step to move deeper into global markets, and so the economy became global.- This process lasted almost twenty years. Its outcome was mixed. On the one side (positive one), it meant better living conditions for millions of people, who were capable of getting out of poverty, increasing the share of middle income segments. Besides, the open access to knowledge throughout internet, and low prices of computers and communication technologies, created the virtual markets, a huge space for creativity, innovations, entrepreneurship and new ways to do business, increasing the social value of global networks. On the other side (the negative one), it became clear its weakness. The most significant one, was the financial crisis of 2008, and the subsequent perception that despite free markets efficiency, there was no way to avoid its failures at a global scale .Moral hazard, information asymmetry advantages, firms collusive actions, and reckless corporative behavior, which given the policy tools to deal with it, and without a global institutional framework, made the global economy unstable and much riskier on the long run. Regulations on its own, was not sufficient to cope with global markets either. For the sake of the argument, Central Banks (USA, European Union, Japan) had to fight hard (2008-2017), to get back the fundamental of macroeconomics. From the political and geopolitical side, globalization did not make the world safer and a more peaceful place. Unconventional wars, local rivalries and short term nationalisms, killed more people in the last decade of the XX century, (United Nations, estimates 5 million people), than in the previous 25 years(1975-1990).Besides ,the gap between developed and underdeveloped countries did not close .It became wider as the winners displace the losers, which force them to act politically, no matter the economy cost . The insufficient global Governance, was out paced by events seemed unexpected, although they should have taken into account in advance. Thus, it seems that the current status of globalization and global economy, are suitable for new premises. So, Donald Trump became President of the USA, and the Brexit is already on schedule. Moreover, this year there are elections in key countries in Europe. Who can anticipate the outcome?. Uncertainty, is another unexpected outcome of globalization weakness. The pressing question in Davos (2017), was: what come next?. Is Mr Trump´s Presidency willing to leave globalization, while others countries are eager to take its leadership?. An alternative question could have been: What about the new conditions for the USA economy, a commercial blocs by itself, to be part of the globalization the way it is in 2017? . After all, the terms of negotiations about it have changed, (outdated free trade agreement, E-commerce grows, weak property rights protection, dislocation of workers, and the like).Therefore, politics have something to say about it. Furthermore like any negotiation, mutually convenient deals (globalization is a deal), are the ones which are flexible, to make them more suitable to new developments. It follows from he above that Globalization need a resetting, a new set of premises concerning the importance of stable economic growth, better (fair) trade policies, effective global governance, and more efficient way to solve social disequilibrium between the affluent and those who are left behind. The other question at Davos(2017), was about the risk of moving back the history clock, concerning the survival of globalization. The real advantage and strength of Globalization, is in its ability to cope with new challenges, the way other alternatives (closed economies, dictatorships), can not do.Moreover, a different globalization,based on the new premises, may be the beginning of an up dated world(global) order.- .-

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Policy limitations and the self adjustment path

A current issue which concern the economists, is about the ability of economic policy, to have control of the recovery path in case of a recession, such that the one the global econokmy had in 2008. On both side of the Atlantic, there has been a huge effort coming along from Central Banks about monetary policy, at the risk of its own credibility, as the key tool to get the economy out of recession first ,and stagnation later on. However. after years of such approach in both the USA and the Euro Zone, the outcome seems far from the expected,although more so in the euro zone (www.roubinimonitor.com ).- Both economies, seem reluctant to get traction based on monetary stimulus alone based upon either very low or negative interest rate, asset purchasing and forward guidance. Having said the above some questions arises: a.- Is monetary policy alone, capable of pushing a strong economic recovery? b.- Does the economy always have to react the same way to economic policies? c.- Is there the chance that beyond a certain point , the economy gets to a self adjustment path which make useless any policy intervention? The first two questions deals with the fact that reaction policy parameters, change as time moves on. So, the setting change but as the policy is slower to adjust itself to it , so its impact is lower, if there is still a chance of any impact at all ,in the following stage . It follows that any policy alone, is not enough to improve the impact of policy actions.In this case , it requires a complementary policy .But when fiscal policy is constrained by a maximum deficit rule, its ability to go along with monetary policy weaken.Besides, usually fiscal policy deals with improving output performance, while monetary policy deals with private expenditures path through financial and real channels.As MUndell Fleming models says , both policies may be more effective together than apart from one another. Thus, perhaps it is not that much about monetary policy uneffectiveness, but more about fiscal policy restrictions.In fact, Gordon (Macroeocnomics ,1983) has said that fiscal policy has higher transaction cost because of its lagged reaction due to the link with legislative discussion,such that when it is ready to be implemented , time has gone. There is a missmacht betwen both policies, unless there are some coordinated actions.But this assume that every one knows exactly when a recession may arise!.- The third question, show a more complex approach. The one which deals with the chance that the economy has some self correction ability hide all the way up to the prices level get down. In fact in a low inflationary scenario, real asset value increases, in such way that it may sustain increase in expenditures levels ,fostering income by the multiplier impact , having effect on both the real and the monetary side.It is call the "Pigou effect". Somehow, Euro zone economic performance so far is an indication of such effect. Current available data indicates that Banks are lending more,(1,4% increase in lending rates this year), no necessarily because they want to do so, with both negative interest and deposit rate , but because both consumers and investors have a greater endowment of asset in real value, which allow them to take advantage of the monetary easing, because of a better position to guarantee any loans.Therefore ,it looks like the real Private expenditures can makes its way through to get the economy out of stagnation!.- However, it is obvious that it take a long time for the economy to reach such a inflexion point stretching the social imbalances.Prices rigidity play its role in the time span to get the self adjustement path.In this case, it seems relevant to take into account to improve price flexibility, such that to get that path quickier. Finally, the issue seems to be not only about policies ,but also about prices reactions.The faster they react, which means the more flexible they adjust to the new market status, the faster the economy get its self adjustment path (PIgou effect), and the less it depends upon the policy limitations.As a matter of fact, it is not a trivial situation that while the USA economy has a more flexible prices than the Eurozone does, the later still struggle some steps behind its counterpart, to get the new "normal" stage of its economy.

Sunday, July 24, 2016

Beyond free Trade

Last April, according the World Trade Organization (WTO)in its Press release 768, free trade growth indicators for the years 2011-2015, had a path very close to the GDP global growth. It grew less than a 3% annual rate (Y/Y).For the year 2016, the WTO is expecting that Free trade will grow at 2,8%.Before the financial crisis (2008),Trade was growing at a rate twice higher . This outcome is not somehow unexpected , and in fact it is probably the new trend:Trade growth growing a slower pace. From the above arise some hard questions, and no less both complicated and worrisome answer: a.- Does free trade by itself able to get higher welfare level for a community?. If it does , trade would be always expanding higher .The fact suggest the contrary.Free trade seem to be a necessary, but not a suficcient condition to improve welfare at a steady rate.- b.- What about the answer the mainstream models supporting free trade does provide?.The Heckscher-Olhin model, states that following key assumptions, free trade improve the welfare of a community as a whole, but not necessarily to each of its members individually considered.In other wordss, Free trade does not solve income distribution, and it may allow some people, get higher benefit than others. Thus,it follows that to improve the social value of trade, it is required an effective complementary public policy. Doing so, it allows to get the highest impact of trade upon welfare.- Moreover, free trade means that all resources are fully mobile. This means that as long as resources move everywhere any time ,coupled with trade expansion, theres is a "job creation" and a "job destruction" outcomes, which do not match each other up,such the outcome is a relocation of jobs to keep employment level at the same level.It rather means that in somes places "job destruction" may be higher than "job creation".The underlaying assumption is that because its higher prices and value added, capital intensive goods, becomes more profitable than labor intensive goods one, to be part of trade flows.Besides, two homogeneous countries in terms of technology development , capital intensive goods,complementary chain value, and high human capital and income level, may get higher benefit from trade taking place among them.- On the other side (heterogeneous contries), capital subtitute labor, at a faster rate than the arising new opportunity jobs for those left behind.No doubts, in this case, both an effective and efficient public policy, is needed to cope with this implications.- But , the following implications are even more troubling: As the world becomes interconnected and smaller, at an increasing rate ,the current approach to negotiate trade based upon regional blocs, makes geography a negotiation tool,aside from market size. Because of Geography ,there are countries , that are in a better position to get more from free trade today, than they were before. The European Union for instance, may get a better trade agreement as such, now than in the beggining of such experience (1999).Latin america pacific ocean boundaries countries, can get a better trade agreement now, than the were able in the nineties. So, geography matter for better trade deals and outcomes , which it is not just about markets. Finally, taking into account the above, some conclusions becomes clear to explain trade flows trend.Two issues becomes the most relevant: a.- Trade by itself do not seem to replace effective public policy for improving its impact on social welfare. b.- Geography is as much important as markets as input for better trade. c.- A Sucessful Globalization depend upon an evolution from free trade to better trade, which at the end imply that politics have also something to say when it comes to better trade.-

Monday, June 27, 2016

Brexit: What comes next?

For the world ,It is still hard to believe the outcome of the referendum about the Brexit,which was based on the option of leaving or remaining within the EU. Those option by themselves, stated as either "like" or "dislike", did not set clearly the whole complexity behind them both other than the economic cost, which in the balance for a country like Briatin it is posibble to recover. What if the "remain" option, would has been about "remain in a different EU", and the Brexit option, would has been about "Exit no matter a reform in the current EU project". I can bet the remain alternative would have been with more than the 48% it got.- Most of the analysis, was based upon the perception that Britih Remain option were both all that positive and desirable, which it was true but with some costs , which British citizens thought they were not ready to afford. The UK has not been too much entusiastic about the European Union, as long as they believe it is mostly a bureaucracy, with no other goal than to reinforce the welfare state, and the power of those who are in charge of regulations and european laws. It follows that, It would be hard to believe , the all mighty British would become the "yes country", for such a purpose.- Thus, no matter the economic advantage, there was a political barrier for Britain hard to avoid sooner or later, as long as the EU moved along into a deeper integration stage.- Therefore what is the meaning of Brexit?.It means that British citizens do not care about deeper ties on trade, financial and business links with Europe?.My own guess goes in another direction.I do believe they do care, but they do not in the current status of the EU project. So, what it is at stake?.They are beting for a different European Union, one in which they can participate on trade and finance links ,but at the same time to stay politically independent from Brusssel.Perhaps that would not be the European Union anymore,as much as the treaty already signed say clearly. Well,not necessarily ,except that with different boundaries and limitations.- The narrow margin of the outcome (48% to remain, 51% to leave),suggest that a midlle ground based solution upon this lines, might be possible some time in the future, taking into account the expected period of time (between 5 to 10 years),needed to close the Brexit deal, and the burden of the economic cost to become not aparent but a costly reality ,specially for those who do not expect other than benefits form such a move. Following the analysis of democratic rules, with such a narrow margin, it is hard to think there will not be a path to seek for an intermediate solution. However, such scenario actually looks far away from the negotiaton table.But what if other countries want to follow the exit path to join the British for such a different approach to the EU project?. When markets are unpredictable, Good management policies are based on the premise of "Think the unthinkable". Besides, after the Brexit, the EU is not longer the strong and forseable project it looked before june 23rd. To be blind about it, would be more complicated than the brexit itself.In the years to come ,Politics rather than economics, have much more to say , for the EU to sustain the unpredicatble.-

Sunday, May 22, 2016

The moral limits of power

What is the moral foundation of power?.It depends on the kind of power . However, whether it is economic, politic,cultural or religous power it all come down to the way it gets through to both what it is focused on or , to what it stands for. Political power is based upon voters preference, as much as economic power it is based upon the economic value added to the economic activity by business groups .Thus, those who have voters preferences have the moral sustain to hold power positions on their behalf. By the same token, those who have both the higher proportion or contribution of economic value added, have the moral sustain for its influence on public affairs. From this point of view ,Business man in politics it is not unusual,as much as they create wealth, jobs opportunities, and increase value added, because of their business.While politicians get their legitimacy by their link with voters´s preferences and their expectations,business man get their legitimacy , by their abilities to create wealth also for the benefit of the comunnity .- It follow that democracy whether either political or economic one, it is the main source of moral sustain for power, as much as it does provide opportunities for everyone to get so. Quite on the contrary is the case for cultural power.The Beatles have cultural power on its own , as much as the Rolling Stones also do, or for this matter, some time ago Frank Sinatra or actually any singer of global coverage, aside from all the variety sources of cultural activities. Religious power is even a more complex issue, as long as it comes from divinity.It is not but for e few selected people, to be able to act on behalf of God. What about force as a source of power?.Very popular in then XX century in Latin America, but there are a lot of problems with this approach to power. a.- It does not have a natural link with those who are supossed to be, the main focus of the one who held the power. Besides, Force as a source of power get rid of expectations and hope, because it applies a deterministic rule of decisions, missing the feedback to reinforce itself as long as it is based on fear. So, sooner or later this kind of power gets the entropy status.- b.- Whether voters would have the chance of answering , the question about how they would prefer to be ruled by their authorities , it is highly feasible they would reject force as the key source of the social contract with Government. c.- The monopoly of force is part of a social contract, based on the need of effectiveness only in case of external .- d.- The dicentralized nature of comunications and information in this century, make force less effective than before to hold political power. Conectivity become a powerful grid, capable to overthrown those who depend on force to stay in power. Latin America has a long tradition of political power based on the use of force. Democracy, is a rather new experience in the majority of Latin American countries. The political instability of many of these countries in the XX century ,was the main reason for solutions based on force.In all cases, the outcome was not the expected one.Instead , it arose new and more complex problems, such as human rights abuses,nationalims as a threath of peace, and econoic stagnation which boosted poverty and inequality. It looked like one step forward, were matched by two step backs.- So, power has a moral sustain, when it deals with the ones who can not work solutions by themselves out (voters).Instead, politicians take the responsibility to act on their behalf up to the limit of their ability to really provide solutions, otherwise it is better to try new approaches. such as to check voters preferences out throughout new elections. Probably the founding fathers of Latin America independent countries, thought about force as the last resource in case of external threath, but not as tool against their own free citizens.- Besides, Latin America is actually moving toward democracy models based on the complementary role of institutions, the rule of law, transparency and efficiency of public policy, such that one step of progress it is followed by two step forward the well being of the community.

Friday, April 15, 2016

Politics and oligopoly: Costly Entry barriers

Free markets work as long as competiton also work,otherwsie special interest groups can colude themselves to transform markets functioning in their own advantage ,This outcome is known as Competition among a few (oligopoly) which imply that the benefits of competiton goes to those who contol the market, leaving aside consumer´s interest , and comunity welfare as a whole. Imperfect competition, in particular Oligopoly just as it is with monopoly, affect negatively the welfare level of the community, because prices are higher, product is lower, so employment is also lower, but rents of those in charge of oligopoly are higher.It follows that an economy which become organized as an oligopoly , induce income inequality and welfare losses.- Someone may wonder about regulators and regulations.Either one, the law or the regulator can only reduce the burden upon the welfare of the community, but no necessarily avoid the rent arising from lack of effective competition. Moreover , consumers who are key to enforce the law ,are disperse and ill organizaed , lacking coordination capabilities.- What about oligopoly in politics?.It would be like a competition among a few, but in this case the market are voters ,and the losses of welfare do not affect only to those who buy the products under the oligopoly scheme, but to the community as a whole, as long as it becomes hostage of those who have the control of politic frameworks for their own advantage away from community needs.- So, with Oligopoly in the economy and oligopoly in the politics field, what may be the final outcome?.It is not surprising to realize that in such scenario , both democracy and free market not longer exist at the same time. A new dictatorship arise, not the one plainly totalitarian like the XX century style .This one, is more sophisticated , it goes through the rules of democracy and competition hiding its real purpose, such that it is harder to detect and difficult to confront. Besides , as the decisions parameters do not fit with community interest, there is not control mechanism other than its own perspective of surviving time and events.- Many latin american economies ,are organized on the basis of lack of competiton and political oligopoly.The outcome is corruption, poverty, inequality, and losses because of recources are wrongly allocated to those uses which do not represent the majority welfare expectations, neither theirs best interest, but only the ones of those who have become the controllers of markets and democracy. Current crisis on key economies of South America, deal with this problem and its implications. Sooner or later , voters have something to say.Voters have better coordination capabilities than consumer ,because they identify themselves with someone in a stronger way they do with a product .- Friedman was right when he stressed that free markets economy, goes along with politics freedom , which mean no entry barriers for those who have new ideasconcerning how to improve economics perfomance ,or how to improve politcs frameweork for the benefits of the majority which add up to become real free markets and effective democracy.- The source of innovation and prosperity ,is precisely to keep freedom to shape the design of new politics approach to key issues , as much as to design new product for the benefit of consumer. However, this argument works with a the proper instituional framework with a clear set of rules,and transparency mechanisms, to sustain competition above special interests threats to get control of it for their own purposes. Friedman did not foresee that politics may be capture by special interests.