The flow of goods and capital across borders and between nations has featured in human storytelling and economic relations since the beginning of time. The biblical protagonists traveled and traded with each other, and often fought over the dominion of resources. The protagonists in modern historical tales of trade and war since the turn of the millennium continue the habit in similar ways. You would be hard-pressed to find a better historical account of that than in Ronald Findlay and Kevin H. O’Rourke’s Power and Plenty. The book is as much about the wars that divided empires and nations as it is about the exchange of goods and capital that bound them together, though it is reasonable to say that these two perspectives are joined at the hip. Economics plays a specific role in the study of global trade and empire-building. The exchange of goods, capital, and services across borders gives rise to transactions as the ownership of resources shifts. Over time, these processes lead to the accumulation of wealth and debt on the part of nations and economic actors—assets and liabilities, in the jargon of modern finance. It is the economist’s job to trace, identify, and record the nature and value of these transactions.
Read MoreOne of the more interesting stories in markets last week was the disagreement about whether investors are bullish or bearish on the dollar. On the face of it, this is a silly debate. Clearly, sentiment has become significantly more positive on the dollar in the past three months, lifting the DXY index up by nearly 6% to a nine-month high of just under 95.0 at the start of Q3. On occasion, I nail my colours to the mast and try to come up with short-term ideas in equities and bonds, but I am generally loath to do it in FX markets. Currencies have a tendency to the exact opposite of what macroeconomists predict that they will. Usually, the stronger the conviction of economists, the stronger the countermove. With that warning in mind, I think it’s worthwhile looking at the stories which currently are propelling the dollar. The macroeconomic argument for a stronger dollar is simple. The synchronised global recovery has become de-synchronised since the beginning of the year, and the U.S. economy has emerged head-and- shoulders above the rest. Not only that; Europe and China have slowed while the U.S. economy appears to have gathered strength in the second quarter.
Read MoreMarkets were mulling familiar themes last week. Will a wider U.S. twin deficit change the rules for the dollar and treasuries and is elevated volatility here to stay in equities? Judging by last week, the answer would be: probably and yes. The contemplation over these stories, though, were interrupted by politics. Mr. Trump announced his intention to apply tariffs on steel and aluminium—25% and 10% respectively—and Mrs. May attempted to give clarity on the U.K. government’s Brexit position.* I was unimpressed with both. Before I have a dig at Mr. Trump, I ought to provide an example of someone who supports it. I have great respect for Stephen Jen, but his argument here is like endorsing the idea of a diet by advising someone to eat nothing but kale and carrots for a decade. The analysis of Mr. Trump’s tariffs requires a distinction between the principle and the concrete measures. I concede that China is bending the rules of global trade, but Mr. Trump is stretching the fabrics of macroeconomic policy if he starts imposing tariffs on industrial goods. He is presiding over an economy close to full employment, a low domestic savings rate, and a medium-sized twin deficit. To boot, he is about to let fly with unprecedented fiscal stimulus.
Read MoreIt’s been a while since I had a look at financial markets. But I am happy to report that the laws of the natural world, inhabited by investors, are undisturbed. Volatility across most asset classes remains pinned to the floor, equities have pushed on—with the annoying exception of the majority of the portfolio’s holdings—and short-term rates in the U.S. also have crept higher. In this environment, the DXY has regained its footing, although it still looks vulnerable relative to many of its G7 sisters, and the yield curve in the U.S. is still not sure whether to steepen or flatten. It seems to have settled in the middle; a small rise across the curve. Political risks have returned to Europe—did it ever go away?—but I am unimpressed with the bears’ attempt to kick up a fuss. In Germany, I am reasonably certain that a government is formed, eventually. In Spain, I think the Catalan separatists are on the road to nowhere. Their leader Carlos Puidgemont is caught between a rock and a hard place, and I think they will need to have regional elections to settle what precisely the mandate is. Finally, we are supposed to worry about Italy leaving the Eurozone. Break-up risks in the euro area, however, is the dog that never barks. The periphery wants to use the euro, not jettison it for their own.
Read More