18 September 2013

Libertarianism

I am a strong proponent of freedom and liberty. Not just in society but also in the economy.

This post will be a brief summary of the resources I use to learn about freedom:


Economics

Peter Schiff - Predicted the sub-prime crisis and Austrian economist (Radio show here, YouTube here)

Commentators

Stefan Molyneux - A philosopher with fantastic YouTube videos on EVERYTHING to do with liberty and freedom (YouTube here)

Think Tanks and Other Organisations

The IPA (Institute of Public Affairs) - Australian think tank promoting freedom (Website here)

Reason Magazine - US organisation promoting liberty (YouTube here)

Political Party


Liberty
 Photo: Todd Cliff

16 September 2013

Australian Election 2013

Every three years, Australians are forced to vote for members of federal parliament. Most elections are predictable, but the last two have been surprising to say the least. In 2010, no major political party had a majority in the lower house, resulting in a hung parliament. A few independents held the balance of power, the majority of which supported a Labor government. For numerous reasons, the Labor government became unpopular, which is why a few days ago, the Liberal and National coalition were given a decent lower house majority in the 2013 election.

The general consensus among pundits is Labor lost the election due to its infighting, while the Coalition presented a small target and a popular policy campaign. The Coalition’s lower house majority was largely expected, but what was unexpected was the number of primary votes going to the Palmer United Party and the preference deals that resulted in minor parties elected to the Senate. This post will cover why Tony Abbott’s campaign was so effective and how Kevin Rudd employed the same strategy in the 2007 election. It will then analyse the swing to the Palmer United Party and what this means for the future of Australian politics.

I'm Checking In!

When I first heard about the Hotelling model in university, I thought it might explain the vacancy rate of a fancy Westin Hotel. But what it really explains is how two agents maximise their market share. The practical example is two ice cream trucks on a stretch of road parallel to a beach on a summer’s day. Both the beach and the road parallel to it, are exactly 1000m and beach goers are evenly distributed across the beach. Ice Cream Truck X (now known as X) parks itself 250m from the east end of the beach while Ice Cream Truck Y (now known as Y) parks itself 250m from the west end of the beach. There is a 500m gap between the two trucks. Beach goers standing in the middle of the beach (500m from the east and west end) are indifferent to which truck they buy ice cream from because each truck is 250m away. A beach goer at the east most end of the beach, prefers truck X since it is 250m away while truck Y is 750m away. Similarly, for a beach goer at the west most end of the beach will prefer truck Y because it is closer.

X realises that moving to the middle of the beach (500m from either end) results in more customers. Someone standing in the middle of the beach now prefers X to Y since X is right in front of them. Someone standing at the east more end of the beach still prefers X to Y since X is now 500m away but Y is still 750m away. Y also realises that moving towards the middle of beach results in more customers so now Y parks right next to X in the middle of the beach (assume that they are both right in the middle). Now people standing in the middle of the beach are indifferent between the two trucks since they are both right in front of them. A person at the east most part of the beach is indifferent since both trucks are 500m away and the same goes for someone at the west most end of the beach.

A is Ice Cream Truck X and C is Ice Cream Truck Y


What this model demonstrates is that the optimal location of an ice cream truck is right next to each other. IT IS NOT IN THE MIDDLE. The middle is the result because both ice cream trucks rationally play this strategy. For example, if Y was irrational and for some reason stays 250m from the west end. X just parks 251m from the west end and captures 749m of beach while Y is only left with 250m.

Hopefully all of this made sense because this is exactly the same strategy used in a political system that is a two party system. However, in politics it is more commonly referred to as Median Voter TheoremEssentially, both parties converge towards the median voter’s policy preferences.


To capture the most votes, A and B move towards the median

The Real World

Tony Abbott leads the centre-right coalition which is the standard conservative party that claims to believe in free markets and family values. However, Abbott’s move towards the median voter resulted in a massive welfare scheme (Paid Parental Leave) which is funded by a tax on large businesses. The median voter also cares about cuts to government spending which Labor tried to exploit with their claims the Coalition would “Cut, cut, cut …” where … is public sector jobs, education and health spending, economic growth, small babies, you name it. In the end, the Coalition’s budget was marginally better than Labor’s which neutralised the major cuts to spending scare campaign. Abbott also watered down his commitment to a surplus claiming a return to surplus “within 10 years”. As you can see, the welfare scheme funded by a new tax and the lack of major spending cuts is more to the political centre than to the “political or economic right”.

We saw the same thing in 2007 when Rudd’s policies were similar to Howard’s and because of this he was called “Me Too” Rudd. Ross Gittens, who I disagree with on a lot of things, covered this “Me Too” strategy here


The same occurs in the US Republican primaries where potential nominees try to out-Republican each other in the primary campaign. Then the winner becomes the Republican Presidential nominee and has to moderate their policies to appeal to the median voter who is undecided between a Republican or Democrat president. 

Does that mean we are doomed to have two parties that are identical on most issues with a few issues here and there to differentiate them? No, because the further to the centre the two parties go, the further away they are from the ends.  This allows minor parties room to move in and capture some of the electorate. The lack of differentiation between the two parties is the reason Clive Palmer’s Palmer United Party (PUP) received a large primary vote given the party was only registered a few months ago. Even though PUP’s policies were populist (cut taxes and increase spending), a lot of the electorate felt disenchanted with the major parties and voted with their votes!

What the PUP?

The Palmer United Party has stunned the political establishment by commanding 5.5% of the primary vote, which was more than the Nationals 4.4% primary vote. They fielded candidates in all 150 lower house electorates and senators in every state. Running on a highly populist campaign of lower taxes and more spending, PUP was the perfect protest vote for voters apathetic to the major parties. There was also millions poured into the campaign by its alleged billionaire leader, Clive Palmer. Despite PUP’s electoral success, cracks have already emerged within the party after the surprising result. Funnily enough, when candidates are recruited a few months before the election, party loyalty is probably lacking. Enter Jacqui Lambie who has already shown insubordination to the party by contradicting her party’s policy of abolishing the carbon tax


Earlier in the vote count it looked like Jacqui Lambi would be elected but that now looks unlikely.

Election Junkie 

The election had me captivated and probably too captivated. The best result to come from this election is that Liberal Democratic Party was elected in NSW to the senate. The LDP is a libertarian party I strongly endorse since I hold libertarian views. That means 6 years of a libertarian senator!




This election has really been about the rise of the minor parties and the backlash against Labor and the Greens. Hopefully this election marks the downfall of the big three parties, with Labor receiving its lowest primary vote in 100 years, the Greens vote down 3.4% since last election, the Liberals only picking up a 1.8% swing and minor parties holding the balance of power in the senate. Who said Australian politics is boring?


Lower house votes


07 September 2013

How a Currency Dies


India is a prime example of a broken country and squandered potential. Years of mismanagement and interference has mutilated an economy which is now disintegrating before our eyes.

The fires of inflation destroy purchasing power

The volatility over the last year in Indian financial markets resulted from years of government monetary intervention and bureaucracy choking productive activity. In this post I want to explore the causes of dramatic currency depreciation and possible remedies.

Burning Down the House

Firstly, we have to look at how this happened. India was part of the infamous BRIC nations. Supposedly, India was a new engine of global economic growth that would unleash millions of middle-class consumers demanding more goods and services from the rest of the world. China was the poster child and India was its little brother waiting for its chance to live up to the high expectations set by its sibling. But as any free market or Austrian economist will tell you, economic growth can only occur when there is less government involvement in the economy.

Fundamentally, India has not escaped its historical communist influences. The government is strangling the private sector with a byzantine regulatory system, numerous taxes and a corrupt bureaucracy. The political actions of recent weeks epitomise the intrusive and destructive handling of the economy. By placing restrictions on gold imports and then banning currency derivatives resulted in greater capital flight and a greater loss of confidence. This then leads to a vicious cycle of more regulations and more capital flight until the government and society capitulate to reality.

A depreciating currency is always caused by loose monetary policy. Interest rates are kept too low, resulting in excess credit creation and eventually rising prices. Unless interest rates are raised to quash rising prices, the currency loses its integrity as a store of value. People quickly convert the depreciating currency into commodities (e.g. precious metals), hard assets and alternative currencies to avoid the loss of purchasing power. At some point, the government is forced to act correctly as social tension rises amidst a financial and economic crisis. If the government denies its prior economic mistakes and maintains loose monetary policy, hyperinflation and a complete loss of confidence is the inevitable conclusion followed by transition to a new currency. We have seen this throughout history and thus none of this is a revelation; it is the certain truth.

Eye-Watering Results

To give you an idea of the extent to which the Rupee has lost purchasing power, we will look at a staple of the Indian diet, onions. As seen in the chart below, onion output and productivity has dramatically increased and is a testament to India’s agricultural industry harnessing better farming techniques and utilising capital.




In a free market economy, such a large increase in onion production would result in lower prices but guess what prices have done:




This is exactly why Indians have an insatiable appetite for gold. Gold has always been a part of Indian culture and has become more sought after due to the realisation that gold is a better store of value than the Rupee.

Behind the Curve

When exactly did the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) commit the crime of inflating the money supply? At the same time most central banks did, in the aftermath of the global financial crisis of 2008/2009. Below is a graph showing the changes in the consumer price index which measures the average prices (dashed red line) in the economy compared to the interest rate set by the RBI (solid black line).




Before 2009, the CPI was slightly below the interest rate which means the cost of borrowing was very low. After 2009, the RBI slashed interest rates but made the fatal mistake of raising rates too slowly. During 2010, the CPI was increasing at 8-10% p.a. while interest rates were below 6% and slowly rising. Real interest rates were negative, which meant credit had no cost and resulted in a booming property and stock market. This attracted foreign capital as interest rates around the developed world were at or close to zero. There was a huge yield differential that could be exploited via borrowing in the US at a low rate and then investing in India at a higher rate. This caused upward pressure on the Indian Rupee as portfolio flows flooded Indian capital markets (bonds and stocks). Portfolio flows (equities, bonds etc.) were favoured over foreign direct investment (building factories, buying entire businesses etc.) because of India’s hostile business environment which made it easy and less risky to buy equity and debt in companies.

India is just the worst case out of all emerging markets. A few years ago, emerging markets joined the currency war. They were complaining about QE because it was causing all this hot money to flow into their economies. But instead of allowing their currencies to rise which would have ended the inflows. They bought USDs and US treasuries and sold their domestic currency to stop it appreciating. Now that USDs are being repatriated from emerging markets, their domestic currency has come flooding back.

Similarly in India’s case, what goes up must come down. The Fed’s rhetoric changed in late May with hints that asset purchases will taper. This sent a shockwave around the world as US treasury yields rose, narrowing the yield differential between the US and economies with higher interest rates. The Australian dollar was one currency that depreciated as the RBA cut interest rates. Likewise, other Asian and emerging market economies saw their currencies tumble. As the situation unfolded, the market became aware of the precarious position India was in and panic took over. But what can India do to stop the Rupee depreciation?

Do It! Do It Now!!!

Things India can do to turn the tide:
  • Sell all foreign currency reserves (US$275bn) and gold (US$25bn) to buy rupees. Then destroy the purchased Rupees. The effect is a reduction in the Rupee money supply which will have an immediate impact on the exchange rate. It also sends a message to the market that the government is serious about a strong Rupee
  •  Raise interest rates to squash inflation. There’s no balance between growth and inflation. The only way to get India growing again is to liquidate bad investments and rebuild after the recession has reset the economy. This is what Regan and Thatcher did in the 1980s.
  • Fully deregulate the domestic economy. This will encourage long-term foreign direct investment instead of portfolio capital which can leave the country quickly
  •  Reduce government spending to balance the budget. A good place to start is defence with India being the largest arms buyer in the world. By reducing the deficit, the government borrows less money from the private sector and therefore the private sector has more capital to invest in productive investments. A submarine is not a productive investment!

However, Indian elections are around the corner and reform measures are not popular. This is what happens if no reforms take place:
  •  Rupee continues to plunge, which results in lower confidence and capital flight. Could result in a vicious cycle till the government is forced to act
  • Import prices sky-rocket. Oil is already 50% more expensive in recent months
  •  Long-term stigma and sovereign risk due to the perception of a dysfunctional economy

The only way India can seize its potential is by deregulating the entire economy and restoring faith in its fiat currency as a store of value. Both these actions are difficult given their political implications, which is why I am doubtful they will be done voluntarily. It will be the market who makes an offer they can’t refuse, and will be the driving factor behind change. Unfortunately, this episode has proven once again that the actions of the few in government torture the many living under India’s rule.