Categories
Economics

[2630] Pegging debt forgiveness to the pace of Greek reform would be better

The Economist supports further debt forgiveness for Greece to get Greece out of the economic disaster it is in now.[1] I support such move. It is essentially a default, but making it consensual between the creditors and the debtors will be important in maintaining some kind of stability in the market.

The forgiveness will definitely free up resources for the Greek government. Even right now, just as The Economist wrote, Greece is increasingly unlikely to repay whatever it owe without resorting to the debt market. Besides, as The Economist pointed out in the same article, more than 70% of Greek debts are owned by European governments and the ECB. Given that these governments as well as the ECB are in it together with Greece if they want to maintain the integrity of the Eurozone, they should take further haircut. The ECB has been adamant about not suffering a haircut, but I think that is an unfair uncompromising position given how private bondholders had agreed to a haircut themselves. Why should the other sector be any different?

Right now, Greece is utterly dependent on bailout money from the Troika to run its government. The bailout money has been the carrot for various necessary reforms in Greece. The Troika wants Greece to execute those reforms before releasing the bailout money. With the Greek tight on money, bankruptcy looms.

If it was not for all the European complications, an outright default would have been the best way forward. It is clear that Greece cannot pay whatever it borrowed and the world might as well accept it and more on. Greece will undergo severe pain (it is already there anyway) but at least, it would have smaller or no debt at all after that. Greece can start afresh.

I think, the best is for the Troika, the government creditors as well as the ECB especially to peg debt forgiveness with the pace of reform, just as The Economist proposed. That would be better than pegging the bailout money to reform. Bailout money only increases the burden of debt for Greece and I am unsure how that would help in the long run. Considerable amount of government revenue would continue to go into servicing those old and new debts and only limited residual resources would be available for Greece to invest in itself. A debt relief program may enable Greece to invest in itself and carry itself out of the hole sooner than the ongoing bailout program can.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved
[1] — A GENERAL strike; protesters on the streets; parliamentary battles over austerity measures needed to unlock rescue funds; and a sinking economy with an ever bigger debt burden. The situation in Athens this week is grimly familiar—and not just because Greece has had so many similar weeks over the past couple of years. There are also eerie echoes of the developing-country debt crises of the 1980s and 1990s. [The Economist. How to end the agony. November 10 2012]

Categories
Economics

[2629] Recent RGDP growth versus sort of long-run growth

The recent real GDP growth were considered strong given how expectations were low to start with. In fact, expectations have consistently been on the bearish side over the past quarters as actual growth, or rather the official government estimates, have beaten market expectations over and over again. In fact, real GDP growth for the first and the second quarter have been revised upward to 5.1% year-on-year and 5.6% year-on-year from 4.9% and 5.4% respectively, making the official growth numbers even farther away from market expectations. The first quarter number itself was originally reported as 4.7% in May 2012.

The bearish expectations have partly to do with pessimism in the global economy and how it may affect the Malaysian economy. The Eurozone was not doing enough and went into recession, the Chinese economy slowed down and recovery in the US just had not been fast enough. Malaysian trade and export figures, especially in the third quarter had not been convincing.

But the economy was estimated to have grown by 5.2% from a year ago in the third quarter despite problems abroad. The domestic economy powered through the dark clouds with what I think essentially was a de facto fiscal stimulus. From BRIM to bonuses for civil servants to Felda payment, it sounds like a fiscal stimulus to me, especially if one considers that consumption has been growing above and beyond its usual growth rate in the last two quarters.

But what if recent growth is compared a sort of long-run trend instead of expectations?

Recent growth becomes less impressive and more mundane.

The red line is the geometric mean of growth in all quarters (1Q2006 to 3Q2012) except those from the fourth quarter of 2008 to the second quarter of 2010. The reasons these quarters were excepted was that there were outliers and geometric mean does not work well with negative numbers. The blue bars are real GDP growth in the respective quarters.

Why choose 2006 as the starting year? Well, The Department of Statistics produces the 2005 base series only up to 2005. I can make it longer well into 1957 but that will necessarily introduce a systematic error into the rebased pre-2005 figures and I do not want to do that.

Anyway, the geometric mean is approximately 5.6%.

So it appears that Malaysia is growing at its natural rate (maybe? natural rate is hard to discover but the long run trend I think is a good proxy. Also, it appears that the Malaysian economy is working near its limit although I have a lingering suspicion that the limit is farther out still), despite the estimates-expectations divergence.

Categories
Economics Poetry Politics & government

[2628] 5.2% in the third quarter, 5.6% in the second and 5.1% in the first

It’s above consensus,
so says the missus,
so shall we pop the champagne,
and start with the campaign?

Categories
Economics

[2627] Does inflation hidden between the CPI and GDP deflator explain the CPI dissonance?

I have argued before that too many disbelieve the CPI inflation because they do not understand how inflation is measured. Some do not get the fact that CPI inflation is the change in price level and not the price level itself. Too many think that it is impossible that inflation is really that low in Malaysia when prices have jumped up so much over the years. They essentially compared prices to a different base than that used by the CPI and failed to take that difference into account. Others are just too stubborn that they express disbelief but they are unable to systematically justify their disbelief other than resorting to rhetoric. While this is a trivial macroeconomic issue, it does have real political implications in Malaysia unfortunately. This really highlights importance of communication between economists and the lay public in Malaysia.

Lars Christensen, an economist and a giant in the market monetarist circle, may have implicitly provided another explanation to describe the discrepancy between CPI inflation and the disbelieving sentiment on the ground.

He suggests that price controls are causing a wedge between CPI inflation and GDP deflator change.[1] If there were no controls, the CPI inflation and the GDP deflator change should have moved in tandem. So, price controls are suppressing the CPI inflation (because price controls target goods consumed locally and CPI measures good consumed domestically while GDP deflator is more descriptive of prices all of Malaysia because it measures prices of good produced locally regardless where it ends up). The claim on inflation suppression (by price controls and not the data itself) is completely uncontroversial.

So, as Christensen puts it, the difference between CPI inflation and GDP deflator change is hidden inflation. Would be it possible that despite the official CPI figures, the consumers feel the pain from the GDP deflator?

While this can be used to describe the dissonance between the official CPI inflation rate and disbelief on the ground, there is an obvious problem to the implicit explanation of the dissonance. Consumers do not face prices as measured by the GDP deflator. They face prices measured by the CPI instead.

Christensen does not explicit use the term hidden inflation in the same context that I am framing the issue. He uses it to describe the problem of shortage of controlled items, which does happen from time to time in Malaysia. I am just preempting any argument that may come out to explain the CPI dissonance that may originate from his points.

My view is that the CPI inflation is right and the reason for the disbelief has more to do with the fact that many do not understand the CPI. Furthermore, some components of the CPI are growing faster than the overall CPI and this might have contributed to the disbelief. In this sense, the pain index designed by Hisham of Economics Malaysia is helpful in addressing the disbelief.[2]

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved
[1] — The Christensen family arrived in Malaysia yesterday. It is vacation time! So since I am in Malaysia I was thinking I would write a small piece on Malaysian monetary policy, but frankly speaking I don’t know much about the Malaysian economy and I do not follow it on a daily basis. So my account of how the Malaysian economy is at best going to be a second hand account.

However, when I looked at the Malaysian data something nonetheless caught my eye. Looking at the monetary policy of a country I find it useful to compare the development in real GDP (RGDP) and nominal GDP (NGDP). I did the same thing for Malaysia. The RGDP numbers didn’t surprise me — I knew that from the research I from time to time would read on the Malaysian economy. However, most economists are still not writing much about the development in NGDP.

In my head trend RGDP growth is around 5% in Malaysia and from most of the research I have read on the Malaysian economy I have gotten the impression that inflation is pretty much under control and is around 2-3% — so I would have expected NGDP growth to have been around 7-8%. However, for most of the past decade NGDP growth in Malaysia has been much higher — 10-15%. The only exception is 2009 when NGDP growth contracted nearly 8%! [Lars Christensen. Malaysia should peg the renggit to the price of rubber and natural gas. The Market Monetarist. November 15 2012]

[2] — Inflation as measured by the CPI is up 1.6% in annual log terms, but my core inflation measure (CPI ex-food, ex-transport) decelerated to 1.1% from 1.2% from April’s reading. Price’s are up from the month before, but not by much — not so coincidentally, the Ringgit has been falling slightly against major currencies, so some pass through of inflation is to be expected. But the magnitude of price increases is still far below what people seem to feel is happening to their monthly household bills.

To get a feel for this, I’m going to invert the components of my core measure — instead of excluding the more volatile components to arrive at a stable long term inflation measure that’s useful for policy analysis, I’m going to exclude the non-volatile components instead i.e. measure inflation based exclusively on food and transport prices, which is more representative of what’s happening to people’s wallets.

You could call this the ”Pain” Index [Hishamh. May CPI: Measuring The Pain. Economics Malaysia. June 21 2010]

Categories
Economics

[2626] Income distribution of Malaysian households, 2009

Below is the income distribution of Malaysian household as published by the Department of Statistics in its 2009 Household Income Survey. Income is measured in ringgit Malaysia per month.

The red bar more or less describes the median Malaysian household in terms of income.