Crisis Archives – Page 3 of 3

The Brazilian Burden

On August 29th Dilma Rousseff, the democratically elected Brazilian ex-president, defended herself at the Senate against accusations of fiscal fraud, the so called “pedaladas fiscais.” Despite her defense, two days later, the president was formally impeached, putting an end to a process that has been carried on since May, when she first left office to face trial. The crime accusations were mainly accompanied by harsh criticisms of how the Workers’ Party (Partido dos Trabalhadores, PT) fiscal irresponsibility led to the poor economic condition that the country finds itself. Among the economic meltdown and several scandals of corruption, her approval rate and the popularity of her party collapsed in recent years. After 13 years of the leftist PT administration, the presidency is now occupied by the then vice-president Michel Temer, member of the centrist Brazilian Democratic Movement Party (Partido do Movimento Democrático Brasileiro, PMDB), a party also involved in corruption scandals, and whose popularity is as bad as his predecessor.

Political matters “apart,” the Brazilian economic situation is indeed dire. GDP is expected to contract 3.18% in 2016, a second year of contraction, following the 3.85% in 2015. Unemployment increased more than four percentage points from the beginning of last year, reaching 11.3% in June 2016. Despite the poor economic performance, inflation is still above the 6.5% target roof, being expected to accumulate 7.4% this year. The inflationary pressure comes mainly as an effect of the rapid exchange rate nominal devaluation of almost 54% within the years of 2015 and 2016, reaching now R$ 3.29 per dollar. As an attempt to control inflation and attract foreign capital, the Brazilian Central Bank – going in the opposite direction of the major Central Banks – sharply rose the short-term interest rate (Selic), sustaining it at 14.25% (!!!) since mid-2015. This also had a feedback effect on the government’s total deficit. (*)

Two questions remain open: what are the real roots of the economic crisis and will the new administration be able to tackle it? To understand the roots of the bust, it might be easier to refer to the very causes of the boom that preceded it.

The boom and bust

From 2002 to 2008, the Brazilian economy performed really well, growing at an average of 4% per year. This was possible mainly by a combination of policies aimed to reduce poverty and income inequality along with the positive international scenario.

Increasing worker’s real wages and government cash transfers to poor households – channeled mainly through social security and the famous Bolsa Família – established a virtuous cycle of increasing private consumption. Another important factor was the promotion of policies towards labor-market formalization, which guaranteed not only access to social security but also the availability of poor households to private lines of credit. Note, however, that not only poor households benefited from “cash transfers”: the historically high short-term interest rate guaranteed that rich households too enjoyed the fruits of the boom. The government managed to attend then both extremes of the income distribution.

International conditions also played a major role in boosting the domestic economy. High international liquidity and the commodity-price super cycle guaranteed appreciation of the exchange rate, which beyond positively impacting domestic real wages, also helped to keep inflationary pressures under control by making foreign goods more accessible.

The Brazilian economy suffered its first hit with the 2008 financial crisis. Despite the GDP growth of 7.5% already in 2010, the fast economic recovery was mainly a result of aggressive counter-cyclical expansionary policies by the government, who acted through state-controlled enterprises (as the oil and energy companies, Petrobras and Eletrobras) and programs of investment in economic and social infrastructure. From 2011 on, GDP returned to low levels, making it necessary for the government to adopt a new set of policies that can be summarized in tax exemptions and subsidized credit expansion to private companies from public banks. As it happens, this attempt to increase private investment had the only effect of deteriorating the public fiscal situation.

The budget, the budget!!!

The change in orientation of government policies – from an expansion of public investment in 2008-10 to a provision of fiscal stimulus to private companies in 2012-14 – happened at the same time as the commodity boom ended. Already in 2011, commodity prices stagnated and, along with Brazilian terms of trade, started its downward path in 2014. The end of the commodity cycle had a harsh impact not only in economy’s aggregate demand but also on the fiscal budget.

Before we get to the fiscal issue though, please, don’t get me wrong. The cause of the Brazilian economic crisis is less a result of the end of the commodity boom in itself than by the productive structure that such cycle reinforced. Brazil’s external sector is highly dependent on the exports of primary goods, and this dependence only deepened in the past decade. In 2015, roughly 50% of Brazilian total exports were composed by primary products, a number that increased 4.5% per year since 2002, when it accounted for less than 30%. If we include natural resource-based manufactures on the calculus, it reaches nearly 70% of total exports! Furthermore, while labor productivity increased 5.3% per year from 2000 to 2013 in the agriculture sector, it decreased 0.6% per year in the manufacturing industry.

No wonder when commodity prices reverted trend the economy took a strong hit. Instead of setting the ground for the eventual bust, Brazil placed all its coins on booming commodities. Despite all the public investment programs and fiscal exonerations to the private sector, the PT administration did not manage to increase investment as share of GDP, which remained stagnant around the 18% level throughout 2002-2015 – with public investment accounting for less than 3% of GDP. Lack of investment in infrastructure and manufacturing industry perpetuated an anemic economy with low productivity and dependent on economic cycles.

Public consumption and investment decreased even further after 2014 when the rapid deterioration of the fiscal budget turned the 3%-of-GDP government fiscal surpluses to almost 3%-of-GDP deficits. It is interesting to notice that the decreasing surpluses started in 2011, not accidentally when commodity prices stagnated. We can look at the three institutional balances for the Brazilian economy, representing the government, private, and foreign sectors, as follows below in order to see these trends more clearly.

We already know from previous posts on this blog (see here and here) that the government sector has a “crowding-in” effect on the private sector, meaning that government expenditure will, by an account identity, revert in private sector savings. Of course, in an open economy, this is only true as long as we assume the foreign sector to remain “stable”. Both the private and government sectors can only simultaneously run a surplus if the foreign sector generates a surplus that is big enough to account for both. (The intention of the figure presented is not to show that the balances sum to zero – which could be demonstrated by inverting the sign of the private sector and using a bar graph – but to show the movements of the financial assets and liabilities between the three sectors).

In the case of the Brazilian economy, the improvement of the foreign sector in 2001 allowed an increase in the private sector savings and a decrease in government total deficits. Once the financial crisis struck at the end of 2007, despite the counter-cyclical policies, the deterioration of the current account was mainly absorbed by a decrease in savings of the private sector, with government persisting to run primary surpluses and to sustain its total deficit level – even decreasing it until late 2012. On that year, we observe a sharp deleveraging of the private sector which, given the steady trend of the current account, was completely mirrored by the public sector.

Once again, the mistake – to name one – of the PT administration is that instead of increasing fiscal stimulus through direct government expenditure and investment in infrastructure it bet on providing credit and fiscal exonerations to the private sector as an attempt to increase private investment. In a scenario in which – to use Minsky’s terminology – the demand price of capital decreases at a faster rate than the supply price of capital, investment will not take place. In other words, despite the stimuli reducing the cost of new investment, expectations of profits were falling at a faster rate. In a situation of lack of aggregate demand, the government has to directly spend in order to create the necessary stimulus to the private sector through the generation of profits. Its avoidance led to the deterioration of the fiscal budget through the revenue side, surpassing now 10% of GDP, a result of the economic meltdown.

Instead of stimulating the economic activity by driving aggregate demand and adjusting the economy by sustaining the levels of output and employment, the government opted, mainly after 2014, for a “building confidence” strategy in which it compromises to reducing inflation, generating primary surpluses by increasing interest rates, and cutting government deficits, an adjustment that comes, in such case, through deepening the economic recession. All of it with the intention to attract market’s attention and foreign capital inflows. It, in fact, has a huge potential to generate financial fragility – but this is subject for another post.

And what now?

To address the second question posed at the beginning of this text, it is hard to believe that the new administration will be able to revert the dire scenario. It is still unsure if Temer will have the political leverage to pass important fiscal structural reforms in Congress, such as pension reform. Temer’s pledge to sharply reduce the government deficit can be summarized in the attempt to pass a law that will impose a limit to government expenditure indexed to the inflation level of the previous year. Besides reducing the ability of the government to invest, it also means cutting spending on areas such as education and public health, thus reducing the welfare state that was established in the previous decade, a major element in the virtuous cycle.

Whether or not promising to reduce inflation and the public deficit will be miraculously enough to stimulate agents confidence in the future, it will for sure hurt the economy and lead to a further decrease in demand price of investment in the short-run. In a situation of deleveraging private sector and slow global trade, it is unlikely that private investment will rise anytime soon. Until then, workers will be the ones to suffer from the increasing unemployment levels. The interest rate, beyond undermining any conceivable investment effort that could come from private agents, also carries a feedback effect to government budget and a distributive matter, as mentioned in the beginning of this text. When the pressure to cut government spending increases, “attend both extremes of the income distribution” becomes a hard job. We already know which side was chosen. Unfortunately, very often the adjustment burden comes from the weaker side.

(*) All the data presented in the text are extracted from the Brazilian Central Bank (BCB) and the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE).

Can we Learn from Minsky Before the Next Crisis?

Earlier this month I had a conversation with a regional manager from a major insurance company. She explained to me the many aspects of her industry: the commission based salaries, strategies to sell life insurance to one year-old children, and how to retain employees. To be honest, I don’t find insurance to be the most riveting topic out there, but I did have a question I wanted answered: What does her company do with the money their clients pay for their insurance packages? Her response surprised me for its candor, she said:

“You know, insurance companies don’t make their money from premiums and things like that anymore. Most profits come from investing in the stock market.”

We truly are in the era, as Minsky called it, of money manager capitalism. What this means is that insurance companies are no longer in the business of insurance, they are just another player in the financial markets; the only thing that differs is how they get their capital. Combine that with the fact that many of their employees have their entire pay check dependent on commissions and we have companies that are trying to sell as many policies as possible – sometimes to people who do not need it or can’t afford it – in order to have more capital for financial investments.

If that sounds familiar it is because those are the kind of practices (while obviously not the only one) that led to the Great Recession and specifically to the crash of insurance giant AIG (which was bailed out with 182 billion dollars). It is, to say the least, disheartening to see that those practices are still in place by insurers and elsewhere, but it is hardly surprising. To know why we must turn to Minsky’s Financial Instability Hypothesis.

minsky (1) — Illustration: Heske van Doornen

The Hypothesis is possibly the most notable part of Minsky’s extensive work, it is indeed brilliant in its accuracy and simplicity. Nevertheless, it seems to escape from the spotlight of economics and politics in an counter-cyclical manner: every time the economy does well, people seem to forget about it – but during the crisis his book Stabilizing an Unstable Economy went from costing less than 20 dollars, to over 800 (that is, if you could find it). Another example, The Economist had only mentioned him once while Minsky was alive, but since the 2007 crisis his ideas have appeared in over 30 of their articles. As the British newspaper puts it, “it remained until 2007, when the subprime-mortgage crisis erupted in America. Suddenly, it seemed that everyone was turning to his writings as they tried to make sense of the mayhem.” Therein lies the irony, it is exactly when the economy is booming that we should pay the most attention to the Financial Instability Hypothesis.

In short, Minsky postulated that stability is destabilizing, as Oscar Valdes-Viera has awesomely explained before in this blog. In his post, Oscar tells us to be skeptical of politicians who say the economy is doing well; that is when individuals and institutions are moving from hedge, to speculative, to Ponzi positions. In most cases, economic actors will become eerie of risk after a crisis and shun from risky investments such as CDOs. It seems, however, that this aversion to risk has not happened. One can speculate many reasons for this behavior, among which is the bailing-out of so called “Too-Big-to-Fail ” organizations.

As such, it is clear that although Minsky’s popularity increased during the last crisis, the people making important financial decision did not learn from his work. The problem of irresponsible behavior and borderline fraudulent financial innovations still remain. It is time to enact on a less popular, although still important, part of Minsky’s work: the “Big Bank”. That bank, naturally, is the Fed and it plays a number of roles: it sets interest rates, it regulates and supervises banks, and it acts as lender of last resort. However, as Randall Wray explains in a 2011 paper, “most Fed policy over the postwar period involved reducing regulation and supervision, promoting the natural transition to financial fragility.”

Case and point, the SEC and the IRS had their budget severely cut in 2014 and do not currently have the capacity effectively regulate the financial industry. To make matters worse, shadow banks and traditional banks – as demonstrated anecdotally by my conversation with the insurance agency manager – still intermingle in financial innovations. Common sense dictates that after the 2008 crisis companies should have reset to the more sustainable and safer hedge position, but it seems that many financial actors went right back to the more unsustainable speculative position after the crash. One could also have expected that financial jobs would decline in popularity post-2008, but the opposite has occurred; finance as an industry now takes 25% of corporate profits, but only makes up 4% of jobs in the US. The rising importance of the finance industry has other adverse effects besides increasing the possibility of crisis, it means that companies are not investing in producing real output for they can earn more by playing the markets.

Hence is the place in which we found the economy: misguided policy has created a weak regulatory environment where irresponsible risk-taking is ‘insured’ by the precedent set by bail outs, and where even the highest ever levels of liquidity do not lead to real investment and a strong economy. This bad omens have inspired many economists to declare that a crisis is coming. Add to that the fact that recently Minsky has been featured in mainstream media sources like The Economist, and that his seminal book in financial instability was recently the number one best seller on Amazon for Public Finance, and one has reason to feel a bit uneasy about the coming year.

Why is Austerity Still Being Prescribed?

After years of strict austerity and a worsening crisis, the Greek economy is still in a slump.

However, Eurozone officials continue to prescribe the medicine of austerity. The diagnosis for the Greek crisis was the fiscal profligacy of its government, and thus to restore the health of its economy, Greece simply had to slash its spending. As with any prescription, some short-term side effects were expected. However, year after year the side effects have gotten worse, with unemployment and poverty at all-time highs and demand at all-time lows. Meanwhile, the economy, in a deepening recession, is far from being cured. To make matters worse, despite the reduced fiscal deficits, the shrinking economy means the debt-to-GDP ratio is nevertheless growing.

In the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis, Europe embraced austerity as the best medicine to cure its damaged economies. Conservative economists and leading institutions such as the European Central Bank (ECB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) promoted the concept of austerity. The EU imposed spending cuts on all its members. It is using the dire situation of Greece as a warning against the accumulation of more debt. A council of Eurozone ministers, spearheaded by Germany, aggressively pushed for more austerity. Meanwhile, despite complying with the prescribed “medicine,” the health of the Greek economy grew increasingly worse…

However, the theoretical justification behind austerity is questionable. The fear of government deficits was backed by studies such as “Growth in a time of debt” by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff. This paper, published in 2010 predicted catastrophic economic consequences for any country surpassing a debt-to-GDP ratio of more than 90%. Backed by this research, high-ranking European officials made their case to abruptly cut government spending.

While Reinhart and Rogoff’s study created a buzz amongst conservative politicians when it was published. However, it was mostly ignored by the same politicians when it was discredited. In 2013, it was shown that the spreadsheet used for the calculations in the study was laden with mistakes. Its results were gravely exaggerated. After the errors were fixed, some correlation between government debt and slow growth remained but not one sufficient to establish causation. It is plausible to assume that slow growth is the cause of the increase in government debt. A summary of this controversy can be found.

In the early 2000s, the Greek government began to accumulate massive amounts of debt. By 2009, the government debt had reached almost 135% of GDP. The government quickly enacted extreme spending cuts. So, it is resulting in a ratio decrease that lasted until 2011. However, the Greek economy, in the midst of a deep recession. It did not respond very well to these cuts which came coupled with the added bonus of tax hikes. Domestic demand collapsed and unemployment soared. Moreover, overall confidence in the economy faded. Greek GDP fell, and the debt-to-GDP ratio exploded. Currently, that ratio is at about 180% of GDP and is projected to reach 200% by 2020. (OECD) The Greek economy is on a downward spiral in which imposed spending cuts reduce incomes, reduce spending, and further contract the economy, and limit its ability to repay its debts.

Despite the academic case for austerity weakening, the Greek parliament is forced to impose even deeper spending cuts to receive more funds from European institutions. Without additional loans, Greece would be unable to make the payments on its previous debt. However, most of the bailout money received by Greece has gone on payments for maturing loans.

The Greek sovereign debt has turned into a ponzi scheme. New loans are obtained to make interest payments on older ones, while the principals rise and the economy shrinks. The IMF, initially a main proponent of austerity, has recently come out in favor of restructuring Greece’s debt and allowing for some economic stimulus. It appears that EU officials are finally willing to listen, at least in respect, to debt restructuring. Last week, the council of Eurozone ministers agreed to discuss some debt relief. However, this comes with the same condition attached: more and even harsher austerity.

For a sick economy such as Greece, it is difficult to see how even aggressive spending cuts could nurse it back to health. After austerity has failed year after year in reducing Greek debt and revitalizing its economy, it is time to try a different medicine. Under EU agreements, countries are required to be fiscally conservative. Moreover, EU officials, under German direction, have refused to change their stance on weakening the austerity imposed on Greece. Greece’s suffering has become an example of what happens when those rules are broken.

However, if the EU wants Greece to repay its debt and recover, it needs to stop punishing it and give it room for growth. The European officials who continue to force austerity on Greece should take a step back and realize that the best way to reduce the Greek debt-to-GDP ratio and make it sustainable, is to allow for its economy to grow. Clearly, austerity measures have not brought about the desired growth and health. Greece needs a different prescription. One that would indeed stimulate its economy and not keep it locked in an ICU.

Written by Lara Merling
Illustrations by Heske van Doornen