Video: El-Erian, Buiter, Warsh, etc. on Economic Growth

This is another excellent panel from the Milken Institute Conference. It has a somewhat more investment focus than the previous one posted with discussion/predictions on the Eurozone (Greece in or out), elections, interes rates, etc.

Video: Raghuram Rajan, Niall Ferguson, etc. on The Future of Capitalism

This video from the Milken Institute Conference unfortunately appears to begin after the panel has already begun and cuts abruptly, but still features a very good discussion of economic issues in the U.S., Asia, and Europe.

Video: Niall Ferguson's China: Triumph and Turmoil

Link to video here. (Non UK-based viewers will need to use a proxy.)

For more on the subject of China and the West here is Standpoint's recent interview with Niall and Dambisa Moyo.

Podcast: Philip Coggan's Paper Promises - Money, Debt and the New World Order

Below is the podcast of Coggan's book talk, and here is a good review of Paper Promises.

Speaker(s): Philip Coggan

Chair: Professor Christopher Polk

Recorded on 19 January 2012 in Sheikh Zayed Theatre, New Academic Building.

The world is drowning in debt. Greece is on the verge of default. In Britain, the coalition government is pushing through an austerity programme in the face of economic weakness. The US government almost shut down in August because of a dispute over the size of government debt.

Our latest crisis may seem to have started in 2007, with the collapse of the American housing market. But as Philip Coggan shows in this new book, Paper Promises: Money, Debt and the new World Order which he will talk about in this lecture, the crisis is part of an age-old battle between creditors and borrowers. And that battle has been fought over the nature of money. Creditors always want sound money to ensure that they are paid back in full; borrowers want easy money to reduce the burden of repaying their debts. Money was once linked to gold, a commodity in limited supply; now central banks can create it with the click of a computer mouse.

Time and again, this cycle has resulted in financial and economic crises. In the 1930s, countries abandoned the gold standard in the face of the Great Depression. In the 1970s, they abandoned the system of fixed exchange rates and ushered in a period of paper money. The results have been a long series of asset bubbles, from dotcom stocks to housing, and the elevation of the financial sector to economic dominance.

The current crisis not only pits creditors against debtors, but taxpayers against public sector workers, young against old and the western world against Asia. As in the 1930s and 1970s, a new monetary system will emerge; the rules for which will likely be set by the world's rising economic power, China.

Philip Coggan was a Financial Times journalist for over twenty years, including spells as a Lex columnist, personal finance editor and investment editor, and is now the Buttonwood columnist of The Economist. In 2009, he was awarded the title of Senior Financial Journalist in the Harold Wincott awards and was voted Best Communicator at the Business Journalist of the Year Awards. Philip Coggan is the author of the business classic, The Money Machine.

Recapping The PolyCapitalist's 2011 Predictions

For those keeping score three topics I made 2011 forecasts on were:

1. Rise of Android
2. China's bubble
3. U.S. Housing

On Android, the verdict is in:

The U.S. housing market officially double dipped in May and then continued to fall, so that call looks correct as well.

The China prediction is a bit murkier, but here are some points worth noting:

• The Hang Seng and Shanghai stock markets are in a bear market and down roughly 20% for the year, or 30% since May. From its peak in 2008 Shanghai is off 60%.
• Housing prices are softening quickly; in Beijing new home prices dropped 35% in November alone.
• Coastal cities such as Wenzhou and Ordos appear to be experiencing a credit crisis with reports of businessmen leaping off rooftops.
• Hot money appears to be flowing out of the country: China's $3.2 trillion in foreign reserves have been falling for three months despite a trade surplus.

Things aren't shaping up too well for China or trade relations with the U.S. in 2012 either. For more on this see here, here, here and here.

Overall, does 2.5 out of 3 predictions sound about right?

Two more quick ones: bullishness on gold has been a steady theme since starting this blog in May 2010. And how did gold do in 2011? Despite the autumn selloff gold priced in U.S. dollars has returned around 10%. Not too shabby given that the S&P500 is flat YTD. I also managed a correct mid-year bearish call on the euro.

Check back later for The PolyCapitalist's 2012 predictions.

Will the Next Decade Be Dominated by America?

'Tis the season for predictions and STRATFOR's George Friedman has come up with a whopper.

The first chapter of his new book has been posted here. The main provocative claims is that the American 'Empire' will continue to be dominant over the next decade.

Will it? Here are a couple comments on Friedman's chapter:

First, I would take some issue with simplifying the Great Depression down to having originated in Germany. The role of Germany in the Great Depression does actually deserve more popular credit than it receives, but the scholarly consensus would not agree with Friedman's assertion that its "roots" reside in Germany.

Second, on his main argument, the IMF is projecting that China's economy will surpass the U.S.'s (on a purchasing power parity basis) in just five years in 2016. The EU economy is already larger than the U.S.'s. and has blocked U.S. mergers (e.g., GE's attempted acquisition of Honeywell).

Yes Europe has problems, and yes China may be experiencing the Mother of All Bubbles. But for Friedman to argue that the U.S.'s relative power in the next decade will be anything like it has been over the past 20 years seems incredibly optimistic and naive. The U.S. would appear to be at a significant cyber-warfare disadvantage compared to China at present (Update: within a few hours of this post STRATFOR's website was hacked and private client data posted on the internet). The U.S. has also failed to demonstrate that it can keep the nuclear weapons genie in the bottle in potentially hostile parts of the world. China is developing its first world class navy in 600 years. In short, examples abound of the U.S.'s relative power weakening.

Friedman writes about the U.S.'s need for a regional strategy. One interesting and rarely discussed possible outcome of the fiscal crunch facing America is the potential for unprecedented regional infighting inside the United States. For example, how difficult is it to imagine Texans questioning whether their tax dollars should continue subsidizing Maine, Oregon and Vermont? Or Californians funding Sarah Palin's Alaska?

(click to enlarge)

This is the exact argument which is taking place in Europe right now between Germany and Greece. Yes, there are large differences between American and European social cohesion. But I would not be surprised to see growing regionalization within the U.S. as a key emergent theme in the years to come. In the absence of existential external threats the justification for an extremely powerful and centralized U.S. federal state is more open to question.

Overall, Friedman's chapter is written from the perspective of an all-powerful emperor and not from one bearing witness to the paralysis which has gripped Congress in recent years. I'm also not sure he has a firm grasp on some of the social-demographic shifts which are emerging nor the current economic/financial situation.

In short, this chapter seems more a treatise on how Friedman would prefer to see the world than how it actually is.

Jeremy Grantham's Full December 2011 Quarterly Letter

JGLetter_ShortestLetterEver_3Q112

Video: Niall Ferguson on Charlie Rose

Video of Niall discussing his new book, Civilization, as well as his current views on the European debt crisis, Turkey's resurgence, and Iran's future here.

Steve Keen on How He Saw "It" Coming and Why We're in a Depression

A must watch interview with Economist Steven Keen, the first part of which is embedded below (remaining parts can be found here).

Video: Niall Ferguson on Colbert Report

Video: Niall Ferguson on China's 'Achilles Heel'

World's Most Dangerous Banks and Their Host Countries

Below is the Financial Stability Board's list (by host country) of systemically important financial institutions (SIFIs), alternatively known as the 29 banks which are simply Too Big to Fail.

Twelve different countries are home to these 29 banks. Half of those countries host just one Too Big to Fail institution, and the other half host anywhere from two (Germany and Switzerland) to the U.S.'s eight.

Continue reading the full article at SeekingAlpha here.

Video: Niall Ferguson vs. Jeffrey Sachs

Transcript below:

Fareed Zakaria: Jeff, you were at Occupy Wall Street. You've in a sense lent it support. Why do you do that? What do you think is going on there?

Jeffrey Sachs: Well, I think they have a basically correct message that when they say "we are the 99 percent," that they're reflecting the fact that the top one percent not only ran away with the prize economically in the last 30 years, but also took the power, manipulated it, twisted it, broke the law. Brought the world economy to its knees actually, and it's time to correct things. And I think that that's what Occupy Wall Street is really about. The fact that every marquee firm on Wall Street broke the law in a major way, it's now paying a series of fines. Some people are going to jail. People are disgusted about this.

Fareed Zakaria: But isn't what has caused the one percent or five percent of the top to do well, these very broad forces of technology, the information revolution which have empowered global knowledge workers, which have empowered capital rather than labor? So if it's all these much bigger structural forces, is it going to be remedied by some kind of political solution like a Buffett tax?

Jeffrey Sachs: I don't think it is all that. I think that markets caused a widening of inequalities in just about every high-income country. But some governments did something constructive about it, where starting in 1981 the U.S. government amplified this in quite reckless ways.

Because when Ronald Reagan came to office, rather than saying we have globalization, we have competition, we now have to do something about our skills, our technology and so forth, he said that government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem. It was a fateful call. And this is the path that we've been on for 30 years of dismantling that part of our social institution which – institutions which could actually help with job training, help with education, help with science and technology in a more effective way.

But more than that, Wall Street didn't just gain from globalization, it has been completely reckless. They gamed the system. They packed toxic assets. They sold them to unwitting investors. They let the hedge funds bet against them. And the SEC is finally calling them to account.

But the public is disgusted because after that happened, lo and behold, the next thing is that they begged for bailouts; they got the bailouts. The moment they got the bailouts, they said, "Leave us alone", "deregulate", "free markets". So they're completely hypocritical in this behavior.

We want everything of ours until we need help, then we want your help, once we get your help, then we want everything again. And it's that kind of impunity that has brought people out around this country deeply angry.

Niall Ferguson: Well, first of all, I think it's important to avoid criminalizing one percent of the population which you just did, Jeff. I mean, there's no question that major financial institutions have been fined and rightly so. But to turn that into an indictment of three million people seems to me -

Seems to me actually rather reckless. And having watched what you said at Occupy Wall Street, I have to say I thought you overstepped the mark and ceased to be an academic and became a demagogue at that point.

Jeffrey Sachs: Whoa, Niall. You're the one who said that this -

Niall Ferguson: No, let me – no, let me finish, Jeff.

Jeffrey Sachs: The last time bankers came close to ruling America -

Niall Ferguson: Hang on, hang on. I let you have – I let you have your say.

Jeffrey Sachs: No, don't call me names like this.

Niall Ferguson: This is a demagoguic argument especially for somebody who knows that the principal driver of inequality has actually been globalization, not malpractice by Wall Street.

The second part of your argument is that banks misbehaved in Europe, too. I mean, those countries that did not go down the Reagan route have got banks that are insolvent, banks that were guilty of incompetence and malpractice.

So you argued that this was something specific to the United States. And the faults of – and the faults of Ronald Reagan.

Jeffrey Sachs: Of course it was.

Niall Ferguson: Just a second. The banks in Europe are in just as big a mess but they didn't go down the Reagan route. So it's not only bad economics, but it seems to me it's bad history and certainly bad politics.

Jeffrey Sachs: Let's talk what I said and what is important here. And what I've said is that in a society that is so unequal as ours and where the very top has abused the system repeatedly in the banks, the CEOs of this country taking home take-home pay hundreds of times their workers' pay, unlike any other part of the world, the hedge funds and the banks got unbelievable terms of the deal to get capital gains taxes, carried interest down to 15 percent tax rates. So outrageous compared to what the rest of America bears.

Niall Ferguson: You can't believe that this is the reason why the bottom quintile of the population is in poverty and has very limited social mobility. That's nothing to do with what happens on Wall Street, as you well know. The real problem that we have in this country, it seems to me, is declining social mobility, and not enough is said about that.

Jeffrey Sachs: Well, I write a great deal about it. And the big difference of social mobility -

Niall Ferguson: Right. And what is the principal of -

Jeffrey Sachs: The big difference of social mobility in this country is the lack of public financing for early childhood development, for daycare, for preschool, for early cognitive development, for nutrition programs, for decent schools, unlike all of the rest of the high-income world. We do not help the poor. And that's why our social mobility has come to the lowest level of any of the high-income countries.

And we are 10 or 15 percentage points lower in government revenues to help for that. And I'm asking in the book for just a few percentage points and some decency at the top that they start paying their taxes at a decent rate so that we can actually pay for preschool and pay for childcare. And that's what low social mobility is about, Niall.

Niall Ferguson: But when you look at the quality of public education in this country, you can't simply attribute its low quality to a lack of funding. And I think there's a legitimate argument that the biggest obstacle to social mobility in this country right now is not the fat cats of Wall Street, whom I do not rush to defend, but the teachers unions, who make it almost impossible to improve public school in cities like New York where we are today.

Fareed Zakaria: But would you comment on Jeff's basic point which is, you know, yes, it's not true that the gap has been produced entirely because of government policy, but that you could use government policy and government resources to help in various ways. Education may be one part of it, child nutrition would be another part of it. You know, and that that becomes impossible because you're taxing at 14 percent and spending at 23 percent?

Niall Ferguson: So a major problem here is that the projects of transforming the United States into something more like a European country does imply significant increase in taxation as well as in expenditure. And there are two obstacles to this. One, it's very clear that this would not be timely given the situation that the economy finds itself in. And two, most Americans don't believe that that is going to deliver the kind of improvement that they would like to see in education.

Look how the federal government fares and the programs that it does spend a lot of money on. Health care, social security, I mean, it's already insolvent with its provision through Medicare. This is one of the hugest unfunded liabilities in the world. And the answer that Jeff has to the U.S. problem is let's create an even bigger federal spending program on public education. I mean, it's just not credible, Jeff.

Jeffrey Sachs: Niall, you're confusing so many issues. My point is that if we are going to be decent and competitive, we have to invest in it. That's paying the price of civilization. That costs money. The fact that the United States collects in total revenues at all levels of government right now about 27 percent of national income compared with 35 percent and above in other countries is the gap of decency right now where -

Fareed Zakaria: But it's also the gap you're saying of competitiveness. Now, the path to competitiveness for you is a larger government that spends more, correct?

SACHS: If it invests properly, of course.

Niall Ferguson: You can understand why people might be skeptical about that.

Jeffrey Sachs: I'm talking about investment in education. I'm talking about investment in job skills. I'm talking about investment in science and technology. Talking about investment in 21st century infrastructure. And we've been for 30 years demonizing government. We've been demonizing taxation. We have neglected to understand that a proper economy runs on two pillars, a market and government. And until we come back to that basic level of understanding that we need a mixed economy, not just a market economy, we'll continue to fail.

Niall Ferguson: Well, I'm sure the Chinese are listening to this debate with glee thinking, well, there are still academics in the west who think that the route to salvation is to expand the role of the state because that's certainly not what is happening in China. It is not what is happening in India. It is not what is happening in Brazil. The most dynamic economies in the world today are the ones which are promoting market reforms and reining in the rule of the state, which in those countries grew hypertrophically in the 20th century and that is a big problem in Jeff Sachs' argument.

Jeffrey Sachs: Thank you for the lecture. But the catching up phenomenon is quite different from the problems that the United States or other high income societies face right now, and for us -

Niall Ferguson: The problem is the falling behind phenomenon.

Jeffrey Sachs: - and for us to be able to have high prosperity at the living standards we want, we need training, we need education, we need infrastructure, we need governments that can pay for that.

Niall Ferguson: But you forgot and we need higher progressive taxation on the private sector, because that's the most important part –

Jeffrey Sachs: And we need the rich to pay their way, absolutely. Because they've run away with the prize. And they've run away with the prize –

Niall Ferguson: There's a simplification.

Fareed Zakaria: Unfortunately -

Jeffrey Sachs: That's part of the solution, stop calling it just one thing, Niall.

Fareed Zakaria: All right. I don't think – I think this is one of the rare cases where I was superfluous as a moderator. Jeff Sachs, Niall Ferguson, thank you very much.

Recommended links

1. Why is Greece turning down the “bailout” (Tyler Cowen)

2. Circular commitments lead to a Ponzi economy (Letter to the FT). Here's the key quote:

If governments stand behind banks and banks stand behind governments and the central bank lends freely to both and also underwrites financial markets, then financial asset prices become completely detached from economic reality. In this “system”, the central bank implementing more quantitative easing is no different, in economic terms, from Bernie Madoff marking up his client accounts every month.

3. The Bailout That Busted China's Banks (WSJ)

4. Mr. Hoenig Goes to Washington (Simon Johnson)

5. Bond Dealers See Fed Holding Rate Near 0% at Least Through First Half of 2013 (WSJ)

6. Papandreou Is Right to Let the Greeks Decide (Spiegel)

7. Live European debt crisis coverage (BBC) and (Telegraph)

Recommended links

1. Is there a shadowy plot behind gold? (FT)

2. Ray Dalio video interview (Charlie Rose). Ray doesn't have the most compelling television presence, but as the world's largest hedge fund manager he's clearly doing something right. Here is an interesting earlier read from the New Yorker on him and his firm, Bridgewater.

3. Eurozone summit - despair and backbiting in the corridors of power (Telegraph)

4. Steve Jobs Was Willing To 'Rip Off' Everyone Else... But Was Pissed About Android Copying iPhone? (TechDirt)

5. Michael Pettis Talks China (Infectious Greed)

6. €1.5bn Dexia loans used to buy shares in...Dexia (FT)

7. Generation X Doesn’t Want to Hear It (Emptypage)

Video: Jim Chanos - China Real Estate Meltdown in the Early Innings

Video after the jump:

Video: Niall Ferguson on the Likelihood of a China Hard Landing

Video after the break.

As Predicted U.S.-China Economic War Heating Up

Another prediction which is coming in right on schedule: this Presidential political season the one thing Republicans and Democrats can agree upon (the generally conservative Senate voted 79-19) is that China is manipulating the value of its currency to make its exports more price competitive.

We're still in the early rounds of the latest Congressional flare-up over China's currency policy, so stay tuned.

Video: Jim Chanos' Latest Thoughts on China

Video: Jim Rogers on Greek Default, Operation Twist, SNB Intervention & Why He's Shorting Equities

Rogers on how "Bernanke has been lying to us again" and other thoughts on what's happening right now and where he's investing.