The triumph of the invisible hand
By Tim Price
“By virtue of exchange, one man’s prosperity is beneficial to all
others.” – Frédéric Bastiat.
It remains one of the most powerful metaphors in economics.
In 1850 Frédéric Bastiat gave the world the story of the broken window;
The
son of a shopkeeper accidentally breaks a pane of glass in the shop. A crowd
gathers at the scene.
Pretty
soon, the onlookers jump to the conclusion that it’s an ill wind that blows
nobody any good. Admittedly, the shopkeeper is out of pocket by the cost of a
window. But the glazier just summoned will reap the benefit. Where would poor
glaziers be in a world without broken windows? Imagine all the good uses to
which the glazier can put his new-found windfall from repairing the damage.
Think what he could buy with all that new money circulating through the
economy. Perhaps we might all be better off if more windows got broken on a
regular basis?
“Stop there!” cries Bastiat, addressing the crowd directly.
Hence the title of Bastiat’s essay: ‘That which is seen, and
that which is not seen’.
The six francs paid to the glazier for affecting his repairs
are what is seen. The crowd can speculate to its heart’s content to what
luxurious end those francs might be expended. But what is not seen is
what the shopkeeper might have done with those six francs if he had not had to
pay them to the glazier in the first instance. He would, perhaps, have bought
some new shoes or a book for his library.
“To break, to spoil, to waste, is not to encourage national labour; or,
more briefly, destruction is not profit.”
Government projects
may seem to create work for some, but there is also a someone who must pay for
them, and that someone is normally the taxpayer. And if the capital is raised
from the bond market, it doesn’t come directly from today’s taxpayer – it is
extracted from tomorrow’s.
Such projects may also divert spending from a more deserving
group. Some government spending might even involve the outright destruction of
wealth.
There are, after all, only three ways in which money can be spent. You
can spend your own money on yourself. You can spend your own money on other
people. Or you can spend other people’s money on other people.
The last is the spending prerogative of government. And government is
not the best allocator of capital. Milton Friedman wryly suggested in
1980 that if you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert,
within five years there’d be a shortage of sand.
As the world economy gets more and more financialised, and
as more and more capital starts flowing in ways that are less than wholly
transparent, Bastiat’s metaphor only becomes more powerful over time and more
misunderstood.
The economist Paul Krugman, for some reason allowed a regular forum in
The New York Times, wrote in the aftermath of the Japanese earthquake and
tsunami of 2011, that “the nuclear catastrophe could end up being expansionary.
Remember, World War II ended the Great Depression”.
Krugman would also claim that the threat of an invasion
by space aliens could bring the US economy out of recession within
eighteen months.
Not to be outdone, the economist Larry Summers, formerly
senior economic adviser to President Obama, told CNBC that Japan’s earthquake
and tsunami “may lead to some temporary increments, ironically, to GDP as a
process of rebuilding takes place. In the wake of the earlier Kobe earthquake,
Japan actually gained some economic strength.” As Bloomberg’s Caroline Baum
somewhat tartly responded, “Too bad Japan had to wait sixteen years for another
opportunity.”
UK politicians are currently scrambling over each other to
point fingers of blame for the collapse of prospects in what remains of the
British steel industry – which has been in slow but terminal decline for
decades.
Government is not the best creator of jobs, either; its best economic
efforts should normally be devoted to keeping out of the way and letting a free
market do its job. Saving Tata Steel’s interests in the UK is, sadly, a lost
cause.
China’s surplus capacity in steelmaking is now bigger than the
entire steel production of Japan, America and Germany combined. The Economist
notes that in 2015, British steelmakers contributed less than 1% of world
supply. Helping steel workers retrain is the right thing to do. Throwing
taxpayers’ money at keeping doomed steel mills alive is not.
This, while foreign investors seem to have given up on Japan, and have
resorted to their old habits of treating its stock market like some kind of ATM
machine.
John Seagrim of CLSA points out that for the week ending
11th March, foreign investors sold ¥1.58 trillion of Japanese stocks, the
biggest weekly sale of Japanese equities since records began. The
magic of markets, however, is that for every seller, there must be a buyer.
Trust Banks and pension funds have been net buyers of
Japanese stocks for 13 of the last 18 weeks. And not everybody regards foreign
players in Japan as particularly sophisticated. Interviewed on Bloomberg, Brian
Heywood of Taiyo Pacific Partners says that he welcomes the selling by overseas
investors, because it largely represents dumb money:
“When the market punctures, there
are companies that we want to add to. The market overreacts. We know the
company. We’re at 3 percent and we’d like to be at 6 percent. We use it as an
opportunity.. Over the last several years, Japan’s market grew more than almost
any other equity market, and it’s still one of the cheapest markets in the
world. It had margin expansion but it had valuation compression.”
Japan’s ¥137 trillion Government Pension Investment Fund – the largest
pension fund in the world – has more than doubled its domestic equity
allocation, from 12% to 25%. Now that Japanese interest rates have gone
negative, and Japanese bond yields look distinctly unattractive, being also
mostly negative, it seems increasingly likely that Trust Banks and other
Japanese pension funds will follow the GPIF’s lead and raise their equity
holdings. A secular shift towards greater institutional ownership of the
market, allied to compelling valuations, accounts for Japan remaining the
single largest country allocation in our global value fund.
When it
comes to capital allocation, you can go with the dead hand of the State, or you
can follow the market’s invisible hand. We favour the latter.
No comments:
Post a Comment