Likening today’s capitalist economies to the communist bloc of yesteryear might seem far-fetched. What could the free market possibly have in common with Soviet-style central planning?
However, the comparison increasingly offers useful insights into what has become of the winning side since the end of the Cold War.
Consider the “soft budget constraints” that socialist state-owned enterprises (SOEs) used to enjoy and which turned out to be one of the main reasons why Soviet-bloc economies failed. Similar financial conditions are becoming pervasive in capitalist America.
As Hungarian Marxist apostate Janos Kornai famously said, SOEs could ignore losses and consumer preferences, because they could always count on the state to keep them afloat.
The economist’s thesis was popular with the Chinese reformers of the 1980s: Seeking to make SOEs more responsive to the market, they “hardened” companies’ budget constraints.
By contrast, the US seems to be on the same misbegotten path as the Soviet economies. Although it is starting from a different place, the result is the same. Budget constraints are softening, and capital is increasingly being funneled toward fashionable and well-connected fantasists and schemers.
To be sure, borrowing can, up to a point, energize capitalist enterprises. Contrary to introductory economics textbooks, real-world consumers’ budgets are not capped, and venturesome consumers can borrow to pay for the next new hot item. By consuming beyond their means, they boost the demand for iPhones and Teslas, creating incentives for innovators.
Likewise, Tesla and other upstart businesses often rely on external funding, not profits, to advance their innovations, just as governments issue bonds to help pay for highways, bridges, harbors and airports.
Savers also benefit. Instead of stuffing surplus cash into mattresses, they can profitably cover the financing needs of consumers, businesses and governments.
However, too much financial flexibility can be toxic.
Although individuals, businesses and governments can reasonably predict next month’s wages, revenues and tax receipts respectively, they can only guess at their capacity to meet obligations many years from now.
The more optimistic a person’s forecast, the greater their willingness to spend beyond their current means or invest more than just their retained earnings.
In principle, financiers’ due diligence should impose countervailing limits on this overextension. Yet estimating creditworthiness and investment returns is not an exact science, and competition in the financial sector can produce a race to the bottom as borrowers flock to the most lenient creditors.
Moreover, fractional banking and fiat money can further soften financing constraints. Banks do not lend out only the savings of their depositors; they leverage those deposits several-fold, and central bankers have even more potent powers to create funds out of thin air.
As traditional financing constraints have weakened in the past few decades, the growth in households’ and businesses’ debt has exceeded the growth in their incomes and profits by a wide margin.
Similarly, the growth in the US government’s debt — now exceeding US$29 trillion — boggles the imagination. Yet while borrowing has jumped, interest rates have plummeted, encouraging even more borrowing and imprudent lending.
These lax lending standards have apparently spilled over into equity markets. Last year, about 4 million self-described “apes” bought billions of dollars of AMC stock, saving the movie theater chain from bankruptcy.
Celebrities now float special purpose acquisition companies (SPAC) with a strangely effective pitch: “Give us your money, but we won’t tell you what for.”
Hedge funds and private-equity firms have piled into venture capital. Valuations have soared — nearly 340 new businesses raised funding at valuations exceeding US$1 billion last year, and the kind of due diligence that once took months has been compressed to days — or even to just hours with some “spray-and-pray” venture capitalists.
This combination of manic investing and careless lending has not emerged spontaneously or resulted from the complacency that comes with an extended period of stability, as US economist Hyman Minsky, the great theorist of financial crises, said.
The collapse of the Internet bubble in 2000 and the global financial crisis eight years later should still be fresh in most financiers’ and investors’ memories. The problem is that central bankers have deliberately incited indiscriminate lending and “risk-on” trading on a historically unprecedented scale.
Worse, while central bankers have apparently dropped plenty of proverbial “helicopter money,” the funds have not been evenly spread. Monetary policies have been designed to lower credit standards, thereby favoring feckless borrowers.
The central bank-furnished liquidity that has been pouring into stock markets has found its way to fashionable “meme” and SPAC stocks, in addition to a few trillion-dollar Big Tech firms.
Venture capitalists favor well-connected founders with shiny resumes, but as they bid up the most glamorous ventures’ valuations, they fund less than 0.5 percent of all US start-ups.
One well-known venture capital firm has even started a fund dedicated to buying cryptocurrencies.
Savers who are too sensible to speculate have fallen behind. So, too, have the businesses that resisted the temptation of cheap money. Under current conditions, their less prudent competitors can pay more for scarce employees and other resources.
What kind of reckoning capitalism faces — or when — is impossible to predict. In the end, Kornai’s Hungary failed slowly, not suddenly. It and other Soviet-style economies that fed the “investment hunger” of favored SOEs kept shop shelves bare of the goods that consumers wanted and that less-connected producers might have supplied.
In the absence of wartime or 1970s-style price controls of the kind imposed by former US president Richard Nixon, such shortages and rationing regimes seem unlikely in the capitalist West.
The inflationary surge might yet subside as supply chain bottlenecks ease, while the US Federal Reserve forestalls another financial meltdown.
However, staunchly defending stock markets only extends the state-sponsored misallocation of capital.
Unfortunately, the current crop of central bankers also seem to lack the resolve that enabled late Fed chairman Paul Volcker to harden financial constraints when he led the central bank four decades ago.
Amar Bhide is a professor of business at Tufts University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Taiwan is a small, humble place. There is no Eiffel Tower, no pyramids — no singular attraction that draws the world’s attention. If it makes headlines, it is because China wants to invade. Yet, those who find their way here by some twist of fate often fall in love. If you ask them why, some cite numbers showing it is one of the freest and safest countries in the world. Others talk about something harder to name: The quiet order of queues, the shared umbrellas for anyone caught in the rain, the way people stand so elderly riders can sit, the
Taiwan’s fall would be “a disaster for American interests,” US President Donald Trump’s nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy Elbridge Colby said at his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday last week, as he warned of the “dramatic deterioration of military balance” in the western Pacific. The Republic of China (Taiwan) is indeed facing a unique and acute threat from the Chinese Communist Party’s rising military adventurism, which is why Taiwan has been bolstering its defenses. As US Senator Tom Cotton rightly pointed out in the same hearing, “[although] Taiwan’s defense spending is still inadequate ... [it] has been trending upwards
Small and medium enterprises make up the backbone of Taiwan’s economy, yet large corporations such as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) play a crucial role in shaping its industrial structure, economic development and global standing. The company reported a record net profit of NT$374.68 billion (US$11.41 billion) for the fourth quarter last year, a 57 percent year-on-year increase, with revenue reaching NT$868.46 billion, a 39 percent increase. Taiwan’s GDP last year was about NT$24.62 trillion, according to the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, meaning TSMC’s quarterly revenue alone accounted for about 3.5 percent of Taiwan’s GDP last year, with the company’s
In an eloquently written piece published on Sunday, French-Taiwanese education and policy consultant Ninon Godefroy presents an interesting take on the Taiwanese character, as viewed from the eyes of an — at least partial — outsider. She muses that the non-assuming and quiet efficiency of a particularly Taiwanese approach to life and work is behind the global success stories of two very different Taiwanese institutions: Din Tai Fung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). Godefroy said that it is this “humble” approach that endears the nation to visitors, over and above any big ticket attractions that other countries may have
RSS