Categories
Economics

[1984] Of inverse relations between safety net and savings

If you think of the exports as the first link in the causal chain, the resulting pile of Chinese savings is the second. Much of this savings has been by the corporate sector, which is subsidized by the government in all sorts of ways (an undervalued currency, low interest rates, cheap energy). The economic boom brought big profits, and companies held on to much of them. The government has also increased its savings in this decade by collecting more taxes and, until the financial crisis, running a budget surplus. And households increased their own savings in the 1990s, in reaction to the dismantling of many bloated state-run companies and the cradle-to-grave benefits, known as the ”iron rice bowl,” they once provided to their workers. When a Chinese citizen is rushed to the hospital after a car accident today, the first stop for the victim’s family is often the cashier’s window. Many hospitals won’t admit patients until they have paid, and many families have no health insurance. Instead, they insure themselves, by saving. [Will China still bankroll us? David Leonhardt. New York Times. May 13 2009]

Leonhardt’s article suggests that lack of social safety net encourages saving. It makes sense.

The reversed relation is interesting: does availability of safety net discourage savings?

Indirectly, this asks how does that affect consumption? Does it increase consumption?

Implicitly, this may suggest that people may be less judicious with their consumption and more happily go into debt to spend with the presence of safety net. This is so when one contrasts the situations without social safety net in China and the availability of one in the United States as described by Leonhardt; massive savings in the former and large debt in the former on individual level, on average.

I really think I want to explore this when I finally get back to school. Ah, approximately 72 days before school begins. I just cannot wait.

Categories
Economics

[1976] Of it is just as crowded over there

Read the mainstream press and it is hard to miss that the Economic Planning Unit and the Ministry of Finance are trying to market a new economic model to replace old ones. I fear that this new model is misguided and will lead Malaysia down the wrong path.

Read the mainstream press and one will find that it is popular these days to state that Malaysia needs to go up the economic value chain. Almost always accompanying that is rhetoric calling for Malaysia to graduate from its addiction to low-wage, low-skilled workers which, by and large, refers to dependency on cheap foreign labor.

Policy-wise, this has been translated into restriction on recruitment of cheap foreign labor. As proof, an astronomical levy on recruitment of foreign workers was imposed as part of the second stimulus package.

In time of economic slowdown, that particular action does not make sense and luckily, the Najib administration understands this and has decided to postpone it indefinitely. But even without a slowdown, that is no way to move forward due to uncertainty of any country’s development path.

Nonetheless, it is true that Malaysia needs to move up the value chain. We have been benefiting massively from early adoption of a liberal economy but other recently liberalized economies like India and China are finally catching up with Malaysia, and at an amazing pace.

Rapid reduction of poverty and continuous registration of high economic growth are testaments of how fast these countries are catching up after abandoning flawed economic models that ignore the importance of private property as a basis of a society.

Not only are they catching up rapidly thanks to liberalization, with their overwhelmingly larger and cheaper supply of labor, they are crowding out Malaysia and its peers like Thailand and the Philippines from the low-wage, low-skilled and labor-intensive niche. Penang, for instance, is already seeing multinational corporations migrating out from the state to Vietnam and China. This trend occurs because, among other reasons, of the availability of cheaper and larger supply of labor.

From this perspective, Malaysia is indeed losing its competitiveness; Malaysia is unable to compete in a low-wage model. If Malaysia fails to react, challenges from these low-cost countries have the potential to wreak havoc on the Malaysian economy. Fearing being pushed to the margin in the global market, Malaysia seems to be left with nowhere to go but up in the value chain.

Going up does not automatically mean actively restricting recruitment of cheap foreign labor, though. Cheap foreign labor still has roles in the Malaysian economy, even as its importance continue to diminish and even as other countries are able to excel at low-wage, low-skilled industry better than Malaysia.

This point is all the more tenable since in the long run, price equalization will happen to bring some kind of equilibrium between Malaysia and other competing countries.

The new equilibrium for low-wage, low skilled industry — perhaps especially for manufacturing — for Malaysia may be below its current level but the requirement for such industry will still exist since it provides goods or services which are hard if not impossible to trade. Somebody will have to do it.

Restriction on recruitment of cheap foreign labor is doubly unhelpful if the locals themselves refuse to take up low-wage low-skilled jobs. The restriction will create upward pressure on prices which include wages, pushing up the cost of living unnecessarily high when access to a large source of cheap labor to stabilize prices is available in the region.

In an open economy, that pressure will attract cheap supply of labor to act as a counterbalance. If that source is unavailable locally at the right prices, it will come from abroad.

That is already happening in Malaysia and the same trend is observable in the United Kingdom, where Eastern Europeans are taking up low paying jobs which the locals are reluctant to do as cheaply as the immigrants are willing. The same is true in the United States but instead of Eastern Europeans, they are from Mexico or other parts of Latin America.

A restriction on foreign labor will prevent that from happening, forcing prices and wages to go up. I feel this point must be stressed and hence, I repeat, that will inevitably cause the cost of doing business to increase.

The upward pressure on wages has been suggested as a tool to attract talents into Malaysia as an effort to take Malaysia forward beyond low-wage low-skilled economy into the realm of new economy.

This, however, confuses an increase in nominal wealth with an increase in real wealth. What is the point of being paid higher wages when the cost of living goes up accordingly, or higher?

In other words, the restriction which drives nominal wages up really makes no difference in real terms.

It must be noted that any increase in real wealth is largely due to productivity. This is not a mere opinion. Rather, it is an economic fact.

If one is less willing to believe mainstream economic theory due to the unfavorable popular reputation that economists currently suffer, then do refer to any econometric model on the matter; the correlation is strong and the causal relationship is enticing. Any effort at moving up the value chain must take this into account.

By moving up the value chain, it inevitably means greater application of science and innovation to increase productivity. A highly educated workforce will be required if the economy is to enjoy higher productivity.

In light of this, the question is not whether our addiction to cheap labor is a barrier to take the economy to a higher plane.

Instead, the questions that demand answers are: does Malaysia have a highly educated workforce; does Malaysia have the talents to fulfill the prerequisite of a high-value economy?

With a minority of its population holding a graduate degree and with an education system that seeks to brainwash its students rather than encourage critical thinking, it is a stretch to answer the questions in the positive.

That, by no means, is a reason to throw in the towel but it can help to refocus our energy from wrongfully vilifying low-skilled foreign labor to educating Malaysians better.

What is needed is an education system that demands the biggest effort from all. Schools, colleges and universities need to be liberalized to encourage development of competitive, thinking and open minded workforce, not yet more groups to be goaded for political purposes.

While these workforce is being developed, foreign talents should be welcomed and even offered citizenship.

Furthermore, just as the argument that low-cost giants are crowding Malaysia out from the low-wage, low-skilled niche, what actually guarantees that Malaysia can break into the high-value, high-skilled niche already filled with countries that with highly educated workforce?

Somehow, the rhetoric and the central planning action by the government which lead to curbs on foreign labor seems to suggest there is heavy competition in low-skilled industry but not in high-skilled industry.

”It’s crowded here, let’s move over there. Simple.” Well, it is not. While the pay off from a high-value economy is huge, it is naïve to think that there will be no competition.

Just imagine how much resources will be required to reverse the serious brain drain Malaysia has been experiencing for so long. Malaysia is way behind the curve in competition for talents. Compounding the issue is unfair practices by the government that make certain groups of Malaysia unappreciated.

If restriction of employment of cheap foreign labor is used as a stick to force Malaysia up the value chain, the danger is that Malaysia might fail to break into the high-skill niche and then finding itself with a largely dismantled low-skill industry.

With a serious lack of talent in the local economy, Malaysia might not only find itself entrenched in the middle-income trap, it might fall behind in comparison with its peers.

Unnecessary hostile position against cheap foreign labor might cause Malaysia to not have a fallback position if there is an error of judgment.

It is therefore, in my humble opinion, imperative that we ensure the ledge on the other side of the gully is properly secured before we make the jump across rather than chipping off the ledge we are still on. If we find ourselves in mid air only to realize that the ledge on the other side cannot support us, the next place we will be is at the bottom of the gully.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

First published in The Malaysian Insider on May 4 2009.

Categories
Economics

[1969] Of Obama’s offshore tax is a protectionist taxation

The Obama administration plans to tax US-based corporations for revenue not originated from the US as part of effort to create more jobs in the US.[1] This will help neither the US economy nor the world economy to recover.

There are of course legitimate concerns with respect to tax havens as money laundering tend to happen there more often than not compared to elsewhere. But Obama administration’s proposed action will punish corporations for operating in countries with low taxes as well. The administration thinks that by doing this, those corporations will relocate its foreign operations to the United States if they are faced with the possibility of being taxed for operating abroad.

Indeed, if passed by the US Congress, the proposal may force corporations to reduce or abandon its operations outside of the US, unless they are willing to pay those taxes. Under a scenario where these corporations do relocated into the US, the corporations will suffer higher operations cost due to  prevailing environment in the US, compared to places like China or India. It is worth noting that these corporations operate parts of their business out of the US to take advantage of low cost environment, especially if industries which those corporations are in are labor-intensive.

With higher production cost, higher prices will have to be charged and consequently, less will be sold.

If the proposal goes through, it will not only punish those corporations. It will also punish low-tax countries. Worse, such tax is likely to hurt trade volume in times when many countries including Malaysia are heavily reliant on trade to recover.

This of course will only happen if the tax actually convince these US corporations — in reality, multinational corporations — to relocate into the US. Given lower operations cost abroad, the other possibility is that these corporations may actually relocate more of its businesses abroad, avoiding being labeled as US corporations to avoid the tax altogether. This will be bad for the US economy.

So, the possibilities here are: one, the US bringing the world down together with it; two, the US bringing itself down. Either way, the US will lose out. The third and better possibility, of course, is for the US to not impose that tax.

The proposed move should not be too surprising to too many people. The Democrats since at least 2004 — the days of John Kerry and John Edwards — have wanted to somehow punish firms that they accuse as shipping American jobs abroad, either through outsourcing or offshoring. That thinking is protectionist and the Obama administration’s proposal should be seen as a follow-up to that protectionist tendency that Democrats are known for.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — May 4 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama proposed raising about $190 billion over the next decade by outlawing three offshore tax-avoidance techniques used by U.S. companies such as Caterpillar Inc. and Procter & Gamble Co.

Obama’s plan also would make it riskier for Americans to stash money in tax-havens. [Obama Seeks End of Corporate Tax Break to Raise $190 Billion. Ryan J. Donmoyer. Bloomberg. May 4 2009]

Categories
Economics

[1965] Of Malaysian recovery began in February?

Some concrete evidence that the economy may have recovered faster than expected:

The Coincident Index (CI) rose by 0.5% in February 2009. The increase of the index was mainly contributed by real sales in manufacturing sector (0.5%), real salaries & wages in manufacturing sector (0.2%) and real contributions in EPF (0.2%). The six-month smoothed growth rate of CI showed a slight improvement to -9.8% from -11.9% recorded in the previous month.

The Leading Index (LI) which monitor the economic performance in advance also increased in February 2009. The index grew by 1.1% to 158.2 points in the current month. These were attributed by real total trade of eight major trading partners (0.5%), number of new companies registered (0.5%), Bursa Malaysia industrial index (0.1%) and number of housing permits approved (0.1%). The six-month smoothed growth rate of LI improved -0.7% in February 2009.

The six-month smoothed growth rate of Leading Index (LI) and Coincident Index (CI) showed a slight improvement in February 2009. However, it is too early to conclude that the improvement of these index provide signal of the slow economic growth to be over in the near term. [Malaysia Economic Indicators – Leading, Coincident And Lagging Indices February 2009. Department of Statistics. April 29 2009]

If indeed the economy began its recovery in February, it would provide a damning evidence proving the worthlessness of fiscal stimuli announced earlier. Why?

By February, there was no real spending with respect to the first fiscal stimulus and money only beginning to be distributed among various ministries. That is of course with the exception of the RM5 billion given to ValueCap but we can safely discount that RM5 billion because throwing money in the equity market is like hoping to raise the sea level by throwing is a pabble.

Furthermore, the second stimulus was yet to be announced.

In other words, the economy might be recovering even without the stimulus packages so celebrated by Malaysian Keynesians. But as mentioned by the Department of Statistics, it is still too earlier to confirm the worthlessness of economic stimuli. Let us wait for March first.

In the meantime, I am taking bets that March data is going to confirm February’s trend!

Categories
Conflict & disaster Economics Science & technology

[1964] Of local pig rearers are panicking and unreasonably resorting to protectionism

Some people are panicking:

KUALA LUMPUR, April 27 (Bernama) — In light of the swine-flu outbreak in Mexico, the Federation of Livestock Farmers’ Association of Malaysia (FLFAM) has strongly urged the government to stop pork imports until the situation is resolved.

FLFAM market development manager and veterinarian Dr Kaw Eng Sun Monday advised the government to temporarily stop importing any pig breeding stocks from the United States, Canada and Mexico along with any pork products from around the world including Vietnam and China. [Pork Imports Should Stop Immediately: FLFAM. Bernama. April 27 2009]

A good move to follow?

I think he is panicking.

Or, really, I smell rats. After all, this appears like a conflict of interest. Here we have a local producer  requesting for a sweeping ban of imports of pork product. After all, the FLFAM not only wanted to stop imports from North America, it wants to stop imports from Vietnam and China too.

It is like hiding behind something to achieve a protectionist goal.

Why do I smell rats?

At the highly reputable Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):

Can I get swine influenza from eating or preparing pork?
No. Swine influenza viruses are not spread by food. You cannot get swine influenza from eating pork or pork products. Eating properly handled and cooked pork products is safe. [Swine Influenza and You. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. April 26 2009]

Hmm…

Just say no to monopoly.