The end of middle income trap

There is a lot of research about the middle income trap where the GDP of countries grows but stalls once it reaches the Middle Income group.

How the US kept its lead?

The US kept its lead by being at the frontiers of development. First it was the manufacturing productivity boom of the 1900s where Henry Ford found ways to deploy labour in a new way multiplying the productivity. The next few decades was more of no-competition-post-WW1-WW2 phase that created man-power shortage. The US kept its lead by bringing the women into workforce imitating the western Europeans. Over the next few decades, US deployed economies of scale to keep productivity high. This was the dawn of the technical age with new machines aiming for quality and speed. The next phase was information age. Again US companies leading the information era created unparalleled advantage using technology. 

What comes next, is the crucial question. It is not yet clear. However, what is clear is that it will definitely require more knowledge and technological input than previously. Can the silicon valley, which has delivered quite a few technological winners, give US the next advantage? The chances are getting smaller every day. But that is nothing to do with Silicon Valley itself, but the political climate in which it must operate. Stifling immigration laws that prevent talent from coming through, unfriendly tax regime that will definitely be a burden on small businesses, lack of science and math educated population and global reach of the VCs may thwart the leadership position of Silicon Valley. Further, technology now allows interactions across the globe allowing crucial connections between VCs and founders possible. There are two areas where size of investment could make a difference. These two areas would be renewal energy and water treatment.

The connection with Middle Income Trap
With the US and developed world acting as a source of demand, and simultaneously as a frontier of development, implied that middle income countries were reliant on currency valuations to ensure competitiveness. The currency strategy, it implies, were creating a ceiling for these countries in terms of incomes. Quite a few countries, like Malaysia, have little difference with US or other developed countries when it comes to actual productivity (as defined in engineering not economics). The lower economic productivity is a function on artificial factors.

I believe we are at a stage when technological edge of the developed countries is not substantial. It is possible that new developments will come from across the world and some other country, possibly China, will take a leadership role in the coming decades. As a corollary, it will escape the middle income trap. With this as an example, it will be possible for others to use similar strategy.

Developed world median-incomes may decline  
Concurrently, the median incomes in the developed world, may decline upsetting the conventional benchmarks for what is classified as a middle-income-group. The current crisis, is creating ample structural shifts to hasten this process. Soon, we will see a realignment of real wealth.

---

My book "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" is available on Amazon and Kindle.

Does the US have enough manufacturing?

There is an interesting article on Huffington Post wherein David Henderson counters a series of posts from Ian Fletcher who argues US has less manufacturing that it needs. Overall, I am in Ian's camp but with differences. I wish to make some different argument about why US needs more manufacturing.

Manufacturing jobs vs. manufacturing output alone

Firstly, it is important to concern ourselves with manufacturing jobs rather than manufacturing output alone because jobs and employment determine the consumption level. 

Let us compare two polar opposites, an economy with 100 people employed in producing 100 units of GDP output vs. an economy where 100 units of GDP output is created by 1 person with 99 unemployed. We can imagine the difference in consumption patterns of the economies. 

That is why I believe, if consumption has to increase (reflecting on economy getting richer), not only does output have to increase but employment has to be high. 

Low cost capital reducing employment intensity of production

The reason why employment intensity of US manufacturing is reducing can be attributed to cheap capital. In most manufacturing activities, capital and labour are competitors. A higher capital intensity reduces labour intensity. 

The relative cheap capital flood of past two decades has come to haunt the US. The easy capital has reduced the employment intensity of its manufacturing and rendered thousands unemployed. Economists will argue that these unemployed are free to engage in other value-adding activity. But that is not easy.

Job and skill match

I have always believed that the job profile of the economy should match its skill profile. A nation of plumbers will need plumbing jobs, a nation of software programmers will need IT jobs. Each nations needs jobs that match its skill profile. I think US has lower manufacturing jobs than its skill profile requires.

Skill profile can be changed, but that takes time. Adaptability to different jobs itself is a skill, a very valued one at that. How adaptable is US workforce? This question must be answered relatively. Is US workforce easier to adapt than Chinese workforce? I have my doubts.

Hence, I believe, US needs more manufacturing jobs rather than simply manufacturing.

Selling rights as opposed to assets - FDI conundrum

The other argument often looks at the capital account surplus as a counterweight to current account deficit. I would not club all the in-bound investments into one. It matters what the US is selling. Is it selling rights as against assets? I refer to rights as rival assets (parallel to rival goods) while simple assets are those with non-rival quality.

[Note: Rival assets are those assets that can be duplicated. A building can be duplicated but not a port or a road. Technically assets are always rival but we need to make distinction to understand the quality of what is being sold. We can sell factories and recreate everything. But we cannot sell ports, roads, beaches, monuments etc. and expect to recreate it. Thus what is asked of Greece is selling rights not assets.]  

Thus, when we look at in-bound investments (FDI) we must look at what is being sold before we can comment if it is a fair deal.

In sum

I believe Us skill profile needs more manufacturing jobs rather than simply manufacturing output. So long as jobs are taken care of, it does not matter if US has enough manufacturing or not.

---

My book "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" is available on Amazon and Kindle.

My cartoon about Greek situation

All work copyright Rahul Deodhar

---

My book "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" is available on Amazon and Kindle.

Curbing the exuberance in oil (& commodity) prices

The fluctuations in oil prices and commodities are creating a problem for global regulators. There is a way to make the volatility go away while allowing for liquidity. Oil prices dropped $6 as the reserves were released. If not speculation, what is this?

Reign of speculators

Physical delivery accounts for only ~3% of the trading that takes place. The rest of the trade is mere speculation or hedging. A lot of arguments are made about the 97% providing liquidity for the 3%. To me, that is too much liquidity. Its corollary, high liquidity means inflation, implies that prices are too high. My gut feel (no research backing) is that this figure should be ~20-30% if not more.

Compulsory delivery

Now if delivery is compulsory for these traders it will make it difficult for random speculators. But it is very difficult to create and enforce compulsory delivery mechanism. In some cases there is legitimate re-sale to other parties (high-seas sale). However, the principle can be deployed with adjustments. Let me explain this mechanism.

Hurdle costs

What we need is to get the investor to block a percentage of capital required for storage and an annual fee for maintenance and upkeep. This will create a hurdle costs for investors. If they are legitimate investors or genuine traders then there is no extra cost as they already have infrastructure for storage and delivery.

The capital requirement will have to be deployed for each commodity or at least specific types of commodities. e.g. grains may have a single warehouse but oil and grain will have separate investments and upkeep costs. 

Trading Caps within hurdle costs

Once the investor pays the capital for storage and maintenance, he creates a maximum allowed position that commodity or commodity group. Hedging may be allowed for 100% of the volume occupied. 

This is beneficial for producers too

Today, producers make investment looking at commodity prices and later the prices fall, it will create huge losses. Therefore, producers are reluctant to deploy capital till they are sure the high prices are result of fundamental factors rather than speculation. Hence, oil exploration that could be viable when crude is at $80 is not undertaken till crude goes above $100 and stays there for some time. In short, producers cannot trust the prices communicated by the markets. This leads to a build up of supply side pressures creating an inflationary spiral that abruptly breaks down.

In sum

Such limits should reduce the rampant speculation. This, I believe, will allow for real markets to clear at correct prices. It will ease the burden on consumers and will correctly determine the return on investment by producers.

---

My book "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" is available on Amazon and Kindle.

The June uptick in Indian markets

BSE Sensex June 21-28, 2011, Google Finance

We have clocked 3 days of super-normal uptick in Indian stock markets. Just as I was not clear about what spooked the Indian markets a few days before on June 20th, I am not sure what has gone right since that time. 

I think, with respect to Indian markets, we are entering a period of volatility in the Indian markets. The reasons are plenty.

First, it is now a consensus view that inflation will move to double digits soon. What is not understood is real life meaning of this stubbornly high inflation extending beyond two years now. The price acceleration that is implied by continued higher inflation will either impact corporate margins, or impact demand i.e. revenues, or both. To complicate matters further, the investment required for supply-side easing are not coming through. Corporate India is reluctant to work on their long term capacity addition plans. This is clearly not a situation where markets should be heading higher.

Second, there is impending specter of Euro-crisis going out of control. Europe is a huge market for Indian exporters. A slowdown in this area will have a shake out. Even excluding Europe, global demand picture looks soft.

Third, the recent fuel price hikes have complicated the fiscal situation. Indian fuel pricing and tax structure is needlessly complicated. The crude imports are taxed, processing is taxed, there is a sales tax and service charges. Ultimately, the whole oil business contributes substantially to the governments kitty.  Any altering of the tax structure is negative for fiscal deficit which is already under stress.

All in all, there is no reason for the markets to behave as they are behaving. While I dipped a week ago at the lower points, I believe there is still down-side risks. We haven't yet completed the correction we were in.

---

My book "Subverting Capitalism & Democracy" is available on Amazon and Kindle.