Tag Archives: economics

There’s More To It

Posted on by
Reply

…than this, or so it seems.

A wave of cash is leaving the eurozone, where returns on safe assets are infinitesimal, if they are positive at all, and headed to the US and other refuges such as Denmark and Switzerland.

Europe’s common currency has fallen 22% against the dollar in less than a year, from $1.39 to $1.08. The euro touched a 12-year low of less than $1.05 this month.

Returns on safe assets are infinitesimal in the US, too, with the Fed still actively suppressing interest rates (to the detriment of those Americans dependent on fixed income assets, but that’s another story). Why, then, would money come to the US at the expense of the eurozone—at the expense of the EU?

For one thing, we’re absolutely politically stable, our problems with the present administration (and the Left’s with the previous one) notwithstanding. So, in fact, are the EU and the eurozone subset of it. Here, though, there’s a growing possibility of Greece leaving, and fear that that will spark a cascade; there’s no possibility of, say, Texas leaving the US.

For another, the currency flow tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. As money leaves the euro for the dollar, demand for euros falls and for dollars rises, causing the price for euros to drop and for dollars to rise. The increasing disparity in value spurs more movement from the falling value asset to the rising value asset.

The stronger reason comes from where the money is going when it arrives in the US (or Denmark—an EU member, but not part of the eurozone—or Switzerland). Tommy Stubbington, in his Wall Street Journal article at the link noted that much of the flow into the US is going to US Treasury debt instruments: the constituent nations of the eurozone aren’t issuing government bonds at any sort of rate, so their price is relatively high, with those infinitesimal yields. The central banks of euro recipient nations like Denmark, too, are busily lowering national interest rates in an attempt to discourage everyone else from “piling into the krone.”

But the money also is going into equities. The US stock market is the largest, most active in the world, and it’s the least regulated, especially compared with the EU. Given a desire to leave the euro, there’s just no place for the money value to go besides our stock market (another reason for the market’s ongoing rise despite our underlying economy’s ongoing doldrums) and our treasuries. The latter which also helps the Fed get away with suppressing interest rates.

So why Denmark and Switzerland at all? They’re safe places for Europeans to keep their money nearby.

Central Banks, Interest Rates, and Fear

Posted on by
Reply

The Fed is looking to start raising its benchmark interest rates “real soon now.” This is expected to inject fear into investors used for so long to being coddled and protected from uncertainty by an interventionist central bank.

Christine Lagarde, head of the IMF,

warned Tuesday that markets could be heading for a repeat of the 2013 “taper tantrum,” in which stocks fell and interest rates rose around the world as the Fed considered winding down its “quantitative easing” bond-buying program.

She went on:

I am afraid this may not be a one-off episode. The timing of interest-rate liftoff and the pace of subsequent rate increase can still surprise markets.

This is just foolishness. In a free market environment, surprise not only is normal, it’s the stuff of profit-making. It’s also how enterprises steal a march on their competitors and how startups successfully break into a heretofore stable market. It’s how consumers benefit from the newly available additional choice, the better product, the new idea, ….

Even the “taper tantrum” concern is foolishness. The only ones hurt by that were the investors throwing their tantrum. The stock market quickly returned to its longer term trend, and the tantrum didn’t last long enough to hurt the actual economy.

Surprise in the markets is not a problem for us investors; it’s only a problem for government bureaucrats so dependent on their precious rules. And for crony capitalists fearful of competition.

Of Course He Will

Posted on by
Reply

The National Labor Relations Board, the union arm of the Wagner Act, enacted a rule a few weeks ago that allows unions to hold organizing votes in non-union companies before company management has a chance to respond.

The Senate passed a resolution canceling the NLRB’s rule with a party line oriented vote. The House is taking up the bill and is expected to pass it as well, and with a party line oriented vote.

President Barack Obama, who succeeded in packing the NLRB for this sort of purpose, is expected to veto the resolution.

Of course he will. Remember this veto in 2016.

More Competition Stifling

Posted on by
1

New tax transparency requirements between multinational corporations and European governments may be broadened further this year to encompass public disclosure of the companies’ tax arrangements in Europe.

… The bill, if approved by European governments, would oblige national tax authorities to inform each other and the commission about tax deals they agree with multinational corporations.

… Under the draft bill, which must be approved the 28 European Union governments, the disclosure of so-called tax rulings would happen every three months and would include deals going back 10 years.

Because governments lowering their tax rates—whether as competition between nations for business investments or just because it’s good for the citizens they serve—is anathema to social democrats. That would be too business friendly. Never mind that being business friendly (which cronyism most assuredly is not) is being jobs- and employment friendly, and so it’s being consumer- and citizen friendly. Social democrats just can’t read past that business friendly part.