Home » Opinion » Foreign Views
Why stimulus won't make gardeners work faster
By Shawn Mesaros |
March 11, 2013, Monday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
WE would like to consider what US$6 trillion in stimulus has gotten the USA over the past five years.
Same static joblessness of around 14 percent unemployment and a higher stock market despite a record (48 million) Americans on food stamps.
How can this be?
Service sector economies simply do not respond well to stimulus.
Consider the wisdom of lending money to a runner, expecting him to run faster as a result of being more in debt?
Consider the wisdom of lending money to a shoe shine boy expecting him to personally shine more pairs of shoes?
Consider the wisdom of lending money to a group of gardeners expecting them to clip rose bushes faster as a result of their being further indebted?
Rubbish? Absolutely rubbish.
Marginal productivity quickly evaporates in the service sector as employment is added, ravaging profit margins and increasing total costs. History is replete with examples.
Service sector economies are legendary in their ability to reach an efficiency maximum in very short periods of time. They say that "in the long run we are all dead," but for a service sector economy in search of marginal productivity as a "natural by-product" of more debt the answer may be far different.
You are already dead.
The debt can never be repaid due to falling margins and then increased per unit cost by trying to falsely create more employment in the same service sector.
As the service sector takes over more and more of economic output, displacing industrial production, we have interest rates less effective vis-a-vis economic stimulus. This is because there's far less potential leverage in low interest rates when expanding service sector economic drivers relative to industrial drivers.
Factor performance may be easily demonstrated in America as we witness the falling benefit of economic stimulus, and as the economy becomes more services based.
Short-swing activities
This also means that the time to "negative economic leverage" is shorter as marginal benefit may quickly fall below zero, just as the banking sector in America is experiencing.
And service sector jobs are, frankly, far more likely to be short-cycle or short-swing activities relative to industrial production opportunities, which employ more tangible resources, engaging more of the real economy.
Simply put, the "work product" may be improved upon as the economy rapidly turns itself over and over again, whereas when I "invest" in more people clipping the same rose bushes my marginal productivity gain trends below zero quickly, because I only have so many roses.
Could it be so simple? Actually not - it gets much, much worse.
When governments both expand to employ more displaced rose-clippers and borrow more money (thus creating more debt) to employ more gardeners, we are stuck with both the incremental debt and the complete lack of marginal utility as likely "permanent systemic costs," which must be politically reinforced to be justified. That means in order to keep the system afloat, we are effectively now in need of more of what got us into this fine mess in the first place.
Factories need people to produce. They need equipment, they need engineers, they are mechanized, in which case there's a "depreciable life to assets" for an industrial business. That means that when risks are taken within the confines of an industrial economy, there are known spreads, margins, risk, and a real life cycle approach to investments.
Industrialized economies take on more efficiency by expanding output and so long as more automation and turnover occurs, it is quite a "limitless" opportunity to drive margins and efficiency higher in an almost permanent upward trajectory. By comparison, one can simply not improve on the process of clipping hair for a basic haircut, shining shoes better, flipping burgers faster, or clipping roses any better than 600 years ago.
Final straw
In one business model (industrial economy) we can borrow capital and expand with great efficiency and expected profitability gains. In services model we have market saturation quickly established and then negative marginal contribution also expected as a result of borrowing.
Services sector economies that stimulate through monetary easing and debt creation risk the final straw that PIMCO (Pacific Investment Management Co LLC) has described as a "credit supernova" whereby we have a profits deflation plus a debt inflation, which can only lead to massive monetary inflation as margins will ultimately descend below zero, prompting money printing simply to keep the system alive.
The author is managing director, Pacific Asset Management.
Same static joblessness of around 14 percent unemployment and a higher stock market despite a record (48 million) Americans on food stamps.
How can this be?
Service sector economies simply do not respond well to stimulus.
Consider the wisdom of lending money to a runner, expecting him to run faster as a result of being more in debt?
Consider the wisdom of lending money to a shoe shine boy expecting him to personally shine more pairs of shoes?
Consider the wisdom of lending money to a group of gardeners expecting them to clip rose bushes faster as a result of their being further indebted?
Rubbish? Absolutely rubbish.
Marginal productivity quickly evaporates in the service sector as employment is added, ravaging profit margins and increasing total costs. History is replete with examples.
Service sector economies are legendary in their ability to reach an efficiency maximum in very short periods of time. They say that "in the long run we are all dead," but for a service sector economy in search of marginal productivity as a "natural by-product" of more debt the answer may be far different.
You are already dead.
The debt can never be repaid due to falling margins and then increased per unit cost by trying to falsely create more employment in the same service sector.
As the service sector takes over more and more of economic output, displacing industrial production, we have interest rates less effective vis-a-vis economic stimulus. This is because there's far less potential leverage in low interest rates when expanding service sector economic drivers relative to industrial drivers.
Factor performance may be easily demonstrated in America as we witness the falling benefit of economic stimulus, and as the economy becomes more services based.
Short-swing activities
This also means that the time to "negative economic leverage" is shorter as marginal benefit may quickly fall below zero, just as the banking sector in America is experiencing.
And service sector jobs are, frankly, far more likely to be short-cycle or short-swing activities relative to industrial production opportunities, which employ more tangible resources, engaging more of the real economy.
Simply put, the "work product" may be improved upon as the economy rapidly turns itself over and over again, whereas when I "invest" in more people clipping the same rose bushes my marginal productivity gain trends below zero quickly, because I only have so many roses.
Could it be so simple? Actually not - it gets much, much worse.
When governments both expand to employ more displaced rose-clippers and borrow more money (thus creating more debt) to employ more gardeners, we are stuck with both the incremental debt and the complete lack of marginal utility as likely "permanent systemic costs," which must be politically reinforced to be justified. That means in order to keep the system afloat, we are effectively now in need of more of what got us into this fine mess in the first place.
Factories need people to produce. They need equipment, they need engineers, they are mechanized, in which case there's a "depreciable life to assets" for an industrial business. That means that when risks are taken within the confines of an industrial economy, there are known spreads, margins, risk, and a real life cycle approach to investments.
Industrialized economies take on more efficiency by expanding output and so long as more automation and turnover occurs, it is quite a "limitless" opportunity to drive margins and efficiency higher in an almost permanent upward trajectory. By comparison, one can simply not improve on the process of clipping hair for a basic haircut, shining shoes better, flipping burgers faster, or clipping roses any better than 600 years ago.
Final straw
In one business model (industrial economy) we can borrow capital and expand with great efficiency and expected profitability gains. In services model we have market saturation quickly established and then negative marginal contribution also expected as a result of borrowing.
Services sector economies that stimulate through monetary easing and debt creation risk the final straw that PIMCO (Pacific Investment Management Co LLC) has described as a "credit supernova" whereby we have a profits deflation plus a debt inflation, which can only lead to massive monetary inflation as margins will ultimately descend below zero, prompting money printing simply to keep the system alive.
The author is managing director, Pacific Asset Management.
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
