New Bridge Coming to

The most populous province of Canada Ontario does not share a land border with the United States. From the Angle Inglet flowing into the Lake of Woods all the way to the St-Lawrence River near Cornwall, Ontario is continually separated from the Northeast States by the water system of the Great Lakes. This border’s particularity is surely a vestige from the 1812 war pitting the British Colonies of which Ontario was part of, against the expanding American republic headed by James Madison. Since that time relations have warmed significantly to fraternal levels. Joint participation in two World Wars, the signing of the Auto Pact between  Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson and President Lyndon B. Johnson, the signing of NAFTA between Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and President Ronald Reagan served as a few, among many milestones, on the way to developing one of the most important bilateral trade relations the World has ever known.

Today, this commercial and economic partnership is anchored by a set of infrastructures reducing the historical and natural barriers separating the foes of old. Eight bridges, one tunnel and a plethora of train tracks and hydrodames help connect the millions of Canadians and Americans separated by the Great Lakes water system. This connection is particularly embodied by the Ambassador Bridge. That privately owned crossing is the route by which 25% of cross border trade volumes transits. Much of the automobiles assembled in Michigan source their parts from Ontario and vice-versa. This symbolic and economically vital route is now clogged, bogging down vital trade and hurting both jurisdictions were it hurts the most; their respective manufacturing industries.

It would seem that the relationship has outgrown the infrastructure underpinning it. There have been vocal campaigns (mostly from but not limited to the Canadian side) to build a second bridge. Previous efforts by the Republican Governor of Michigan and various levels of Canadian government have been stymied by  the owner of the Ambassador Bridge Manuel “Matty” Moroun’s lobbying efforts.

The Ambassador Bridge effectively holds a monopoly on commercial truck traffic. Efforts to stop the construction of a competing bridge is the definition of rent seeking behaviour and crony capitalism. Using his leverage and clout within the State Congress of Michigan to try and legislatively block such a construction, including through state constitutional amendments while rational, is the summum of selfish and amoral commercial behaviour.

An announcement by governments from both sides of the St-Mary’s River is expect Friday, where the Canadian government is thought to renew its pledge to pay for the American shares of construction costs. Let’s hope a new bridge is on its way as the beleaguered World economy can use every bit of trade increase in can get.

Dairy Farmers or Wolves in Cow’s Clothing

FDR used to say that the American farmer was the backbone of America. Likewise in many European countries the agricultural lifestyle is considered like a cultural legacy worth protecting. Canada has not escaped this neurotic infatuation with farmers. One needs to look no further than the advertising campaigns by Quebec dairy farmers to get an idea of how important to society they believe themselves to be. In Canada a more governmentally coddled group of individuals cannot be found, nor a less politically bullying. Ever heard of a politician getting elected on a promise to tamper with Canada’s agricultural supply management schemes? didn’t think so. In Canada to produce milk one needs to purchase a milk production quota. A quota cost $25,000 dollars in Ontario giving the average dairy farm owner millionaire status based on the sole value of his quotas.

Réjean Ouimet, a general manager at St Albert Cheese in Ontario, believes that the dairy supply management is the “best thing in Canada”. “For a small co-op it makes life a lot easier, as we don’t have to deal directly with producers, worry about transportation or even quality control standards on farms.” That is reassuring. Essentially supply management makes dairy farmers lives easier. They don’t have to compete with each other, they don’t have to compete with imports too much (given tariffs on imports rising above 300% in certain cases), they don’t have to do anything but push a button or two and voila milk is arrived. Obviously their jobs are more complicated than that but their own testimony seems to imply their jobs could not be easier under any other system. So great, the then thousand or so dairy farm owners of Canada are richer, live easier lives than they would have in a free market but at what cost?

The first to be punished by the system are actually dairy farmers themselves, or at least prospective dairy farmers. On top of buying installation, cows, equipment, land and developing relations with processors dairy farmer wannabes must purchase onerously expensive quotas to start up a farm. Forget about innovation in an industry where the middle finger is flown at the face of all prospective entrepreneurs.

The second group of people to be punished are the consumers and not just in one way but indeed twice over. Firstly they must compose with higher prices. Some will argue that the benefit of high prices is less volatility in those prices, one wonders what your average motorist would say if he was to be guaranteed a litre of gas for his car at  $2 as opposed to a price that fluctuates between $1.25 – $1.50 ? He would be outraged and so should milk drinkers. The second manner in which consumers are miffed is in terms of choice and quality. With import duties being as high as 300% on certain cheeses good luck finding cheeses half the quality as in France at anything under twice the price. While it must be admit that certain cheeses from Quebec are quite good, that should bolster the case for free trade as local fromageries could then surely compete against imports.

While the above arguments are traditional when it comes to discussing the disadvantages of restrictive trade policy their is a much more pernicious cost imposed on Canada because of supply management and that cost is diplomatic. It is virtually universally accepted in Canada that NAFTA was a resounding success. Since then Free Trade Agreement negotiation has become something of a political sport. Canada is already on the road to becoming the first nation to have FTA’s with three of the World’s four greatest economies (US, Japan, European Union). Virtually all economists (outside of academically backward countries like France et al.) agree that untampered and reciprocal free trade is in everyone’s benefit. Canada’s dairy farmers are vehemently against FTA’s that imperils their economic rentiers status. Canada has already been shut out of the Trans Pacific Partnership groupe of free trade negotiating countries on the basis of supply management. How many more FTA’s do Canadians want to deprive themselves of to protect the wealth of a small group of individuals?

Why should Canada have more rather than less dairy farmers. Their is an almost perfect negative correlation between per capita wealth and share of population in agriculture, which means the less agrarian a society is the more wealthy it is. Do Canadians really want to be less wealthy? In any case for those farmers afraid of loosing their livelihoods to a liberalized dairy product market, they can be pointed to New Zealand as an example which became a World leader in dairy product exports, since abandonnement of its supply management schemes decades ago! Few industries hurt Canada as much as dairy farming, it’s time Canadian politicians stopped kissing their butts and started kicking them instead.

Here’s a Suggestion Mr Carney

The governor of the Bank of Canada Mark Carney has again continued to scold and give lessons to Canadians. He does this in his Monetary Policy Report of April 2012 where he reiterates some of the comments this blog criticized in a previous post. Those comments were that Canadian exporters needed to retool and refocus and that Canadian consumers needed to slow their pace of debt accumulation. The focus of the ‘retool, refocus and retrain’ mantra is largely advocated so as to increase Canadian firm’s ability to compete internationally and export. While this blog has already stated its objection to paternalistic economic communication from government institutions towards the private sector, this blog does accept Carney’s view that Canadian prosperity is underpinned by healthy trade numbers and international competitiveness. There is one criticism the Governor could have levelled that balances private sector independence and improved competitiveness, that critic should be less debt supply and it should be levelled at governments.

Talk of trade competitiveness unfortunately always boils down to currencies. In Canada manufacturers and commentators are always complain about the high Canadian dollar and how many jobs it kills. Leaving aside the fact that a high currency has as many benefits for a country as it has costs, a currency artificially above its equilibrium (or below it for that matter) is however  a concern. Let’s assume that the Canadian dollar is artificially overvalue, who might the culprit be for this imbalance? The Loonie isn’t a reserve currency so that can’t be it. Contrarily to McGuinty’s opinion oil isn’t to blame either. As the Central Bank report notes, Canadian oil is sold at a steep discount to certain international oil benchmarks, meaning that eastern Canada imports at high prices while the west exports at cheap prices, so the impact of higher oil prices only marginally affects the Canadian currency. In any case studies have refuted the claim of the Loonie being a petro-dollar. So who exactly is contributing to the Canadian dollar remaining above par with the US dollar?

To answer that question the certain economic facts need to be reviewed. Commentaries on trade and currencies often emphasize a restricted number of causes for currency fluctuations. Currency movements need to be understood in terms of foreign exchange market equilibrium. Every currency trade impacts the prevailing exchange rate but every trade does not just involve a quick speculation or an oil contract purchase. Much purchasing and selling of currencies involves savings diversification by institutional money managers. To give some colour to this point in 2007 before the crisis hit, foreigners shed roughly ~10 Billion of government paper while exporters sold just over 460 Billion dollars of exports. Since the beginning of the crisis over 400 Billion of Canadian government financial papers have been sold to foreigners. What does all this mean? Government budget surplus reduces the supply of government debt available to foreigners for purchase, a government deficit increases the supply. Since foreigners must buy Canadian dollars to purchase both export goods and government debt, Canadian governments’ profligacies are partially to blame for the high Canadian dollar. Part of their issuance of debt has been sold to foreigners increasing the demand for the Loonie and crowding out exports of goods and services.

Some might be tempted to point to Europe to refute these assertions. They would note Europe’s deficits have widened since 08 while the Euro has generally fallen. This is easily explained by sovereign risk. Canadian government debt is perceived to be a safe investment while much of the Euro area’s debts are considered very risky. Investors the World over generally prefer to buy Canadian debts than those from the PIIGS as they could be described as better quality products. Essentially Canada’s two most popular exports have now become oil and debt, small wonder manufacturing in Ontario can’t keep up. So if Mark Carney is so considered with the twin problem of profligacy and competitive weakness why isn’t he calling for Government austerity?

End of a Monopsony, Beginning of a New Era?

Canada is getting rid of one of its oldest market distorting institutions, the Canadian Wheat Board’s monopsony. Since its inception in 1935 the Canadian Wheat Board has been the only buyer of albertan, saskatchewan and manitoban barley and wheat. True to its electoral promise the conservative government is voting away the CWB’s market exclusivity. Western Canadian grain growers will now be free to market and sell their own products or choose their own intermediaries. While the move is not universally approved not least of which by a majority of the affected agricultures, it remains well worth celebrating.

Before moving to unilaterally de-monopolize the CWB the conservatives had organized a plebiscite of the farmers to seek political cover. The plebiscite was marginally defeated by wheat farmers and soundly defeated by barley farmers. Hence the wait for a majority government to move forward with the plan. Armed with a majority government the Conservatives have moved legislation to de-monopolize the Wheat Board by August 1st, 2012. Farmers will effectively be able to sell their produce on the open market or contract the grain marketer of their choice.

With the Conservatives 2010 move to block the hostile takeover of Potash Corp of Saskatchewan using the Investment Canada Act and the Conservatives public endorsements of Canada supply management schemes for poultry and dairy products, faith in Canada’ openness to foreign investment was on the skids. However, recent musings by ministers have been more encouraging. The governments bid to join the Trans Pacific Partnership is a case in point. Canada has seen its bid to enter the multilateral agreement  blocked based on its intransigence with regard to its agricultural policies. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has however indicated a willingness to put “everything on the table” in order to join negotiations. The file of Canadian-European free trade seems to be moving briskly as well with negotiations on the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. CETA is speculated to open up Canadian municipal procurement. While a few unions and entrenched interest will cry foul as they always do, it remains obvious to most that more trade only means more wealth on average.

The move to open up western Canadian agriculture to more competition was an easy move politically, as the conservative vote remains quite entrenched in the prairie provinces. Opening up poultry and dairy industries to more competition however is a much harder sell. Most of the poultry and dairy industries are concentrated in Ontario and Quebec, provinces containing ~60% of the Canadian population and vote. Political backlash from well organised farming syndicates from these provinces has turned discussion of liberalizing agriculture into a taboo. While Canada has traditionally been a positive element and proactive participant in international multilateralism, its stance on agricultural trade has prohibited it from helping the Doha round of trade talks escape collapse. On top of giving Canada a bad rap internationally, these two industries who’s members don’t even represent a single percent of the Canadian workforce, have been gouging consumers for decades without pity.

So it is time that the federal government brought down the gavel of justice on the heads of these special interest. It is time for Canada to liberalize its trade relationships. It’s time for Canadian entrepreneurs to start exporting increasingly competitive products to the rest of the World. It’s time Canadians began enjoying the fruits of trade which are higher quality products from home and abroad at cheaper prices. It’s time Canadian municipalities began running budget surpluses thanks to better priced procurement products and contracts. It’s time Canada did its part in alleviating World poverty not by splurging more resources on fruitless foreign aid development campaigns but rather by opening up its borders to the labour, services and goods of all nations and peoples of the World. It’s time for Conservatives to live up to the esteem that Canadians have bestowed upon them based on a fleeting impression that the CPC represent good economic stewardship! Riding Canada of an inefficient monopsony was a first step towards greater competitiveness and wealth, let CETA be the second but not the last.

Cius,

Many thanks to the readers of this blog from Vietnam!

Bretton Woods Stress Disorder Again?

Did you hear? China is manipulating its currency to enrich itself on America’s back. Were you not aware that the Euro was actually German machinations so that it could out-compete the area’s periphery for its own gain?

There is a lot of talk out there of currencies being used as a form of weapon in the 21st century’s new form of favourite international warfare; economic warfare. Everybody seems to be guilty of partaking in this ‘non-violent’ form of confrontation. China has an undervalued currency pegged on the US dollar. To be fair, over a dozen other countries do too. Half of western African countries have pegged to the Euro as well as a few notable others. Accusations have been leveled against Germany for unduly profiting from the competitive weakness of its monetary partners since the 1992 Maastricht Treaty (and especially since the Euro crisis of 2011). Various central bankers and government officials around the World have called quantitative easing intentional currency manipulation, essentially accusing the US of cheating (the Bank of England and European Central Bank would also be guilty of this in such a framework). Essentially there has been a lot of posturing and indignation flying around focused on this one issue of currencies. I think remembering what a currency really does for an economy could help cool the air.

Some people like to say that currencies function as market mechanisms. Now nothing could be further from the truth. Just because there is a semi-unregulated currency market does not mean currencies are free market instruments. Just like a carbon market is not a liberal concept because trading is free. The collapse of the Bretton Woods system occurred because nations couldn’t compete in a relatively free trade environment. Certain nations were more competitive and the others did not have the political will to increase national competitiveness. A new system arose quite naturally whereby a floating currency did all the work of correcting competitive imbalances. As a nation comparatively slid into economic incompetitiveness its currency would be reevaluated downwards by a free currency market to insure a semblance of equilibrium of balance in trade terms. Essentially governments outsourced the responsibility of putting into place national competitiveness to the markets to avoid labour disputes and imposing fiscal rectitude to national budgets.

So when China pegs its currency to the US’s it is in fact just returning to a Bretton Woods type formula. If a trade balance exists between the two countries it is because the two governments do not share the same appreciation for macroeconomic rectitude. While the US splurges as a nation China saves. While in the US labour movements have the legal upper hand on business (see GM, Chrysler bankruptcies and Boing labour conflicts) in China pro business policies abound (sort of). In essence, the Chinese government does not shy away from imposing strict macro prudential policies on its economy, America elects Democrats instead. So the US’s complaint really resides in its political dithering with regards to economic policy. China’s currency policy is just one of limiting the risk to business of currency volatility. A policy US corporations should be in total agreement with if unclouded by nationalistic sentiment. To sum up a free floating currency is just a political tool to avoid hard decisions domestically.

Let’s remind ourselves of the cost of a free floating currency when a country is profoundly uncompetitive like Greece and even the US. When a country runs successive and deep current account deficits it means the country is chronically living above its means. A free floating currency would drop to correct this phenomenon. Increasing the price of foreign goods to impose a contraction in national living standards. So a country would in theory spend less on imported goods (food, clothing, cars and other discretionary items) to afford overspending in other goods (typically healthcare, education and other entitlements). So next time you see your native currency drop, odds are good that to afford government social programs you and all other individuals will need to buy cheaper food, flimsier cars and smaller houses. I wonder if electors aware of these dynamics would so liberally demand government services if they understood it meant less beer Friday night and less outings to the restaurant. Now some social democrats might argue it’s the price to pay for equity. Remind the next one you see that poor people are disproportionately affected by increased inflation on consumption goods. If they think value added retail taxes are regressive tell them government services induced current account deficits are more so (lost jobs, lost buying power).

So if one believes the Chinese won’t give up the peg and the Euro will survive (both highly likely outcomes) another solution is necessary. The US to take as an example, are doubly guilty of digging there own grave. The US worker remains the most productive of the World by any metric, so why does does the Chinese worker out-compete him (as demonstrated by the gaping trade deficit between the two countries). The reason is because the Americans are doubly competitive. How so? One of the US’s greatest exports with which virtually no country can compete is its government debts! No other financial instrument is more prized than the US’s Treasury Bonds. While the merchandise and trade balances can be negative the balance of payments always equals zero.

So all countries are faced with a straightforward choice; export goods and services or export financial paper (of which government is generally the largest component). Since the US issue so much debt that everybody buys the money cannot be spent on goods! If Barack Obama really wants to double exports in 5 years he can do it in a heartbeat by refusing to sign the next debt level increase legislation to hit his office. Obviously this implies hard political choices which I don’t mean to discount so caricaturally. China’s peg works by purchasing US financial assets, stop issuing them and China will not be able to buy them. The peg will then collapse without outright adoptions of the US dollar. Since China is so hell bent on controlling its internal economy, sacrificing the totality of its monetary policy sovereignty to another country is probably not in the cards.

The lesson while somewhat different for the PIIGS is essentially the same. Get competitive or get punished “à la Grecque”. Stop living above your means. Whether in a monetary union or even in a free floating currency regime, free lunches don’t exists, you’ve got to pay the piper someday. So Brazil and Canada pipe down will you, stop blaming your woes on currencies that refuse to act conveniently to your politics. To the US, ”Buy-American”, quantitative easing et al. are really cheap tricks. To any and all thinking of tariffs and quotas, please look at what happened last time that was tried. So to all China haters in the US or Germanophobes in Greece and the like, blame yourself for being ungovernable first, everybody else is just trying to do their jobs, time you started doing yours.

Cius

Debunking McGuintonomics

So last week Alison Redford the Premier of Alberta asked Ontario’s Premier Dalton McGuinty to show some public support for the Oil Sands, currently facing a heap of criticism from environmentalists. No one knows what Mrs. Redford was expecting as a response, in any case the answer sounded a little bit like “If Alberta didn’t exists Ontario would be better off”. His conclusion was based on the popular belief that the Canadian dollar had become a ‘PetroDollar’ and that it’s meteoric rise had crushed Ontario’s manufacturing base. Now because McGuinty and his family seem to be career politicians we will pardon his ignorance of economics and try to fill some of his knowledge gap.

So McGuinty thinks a high dollar is bad. First mistake. Very broadly speaking a relatively high currency is a mark of wealth. Basically the World wants to buy our stuff more than we want to buy the worlds stuff. Okay so foreigners recognize that we are a nice country worth investing in and who’s products look alright, but if you still believe a high currency is killing jobs in manufacturing well that would seem like a mightily expensive accolade. However Ontario is not innocent in this. Unfortunately the worlds appreciation of fiscal virtuousness is quite lagged to reality by a couple crises. So when Canada starts supplying the World with all our AAA rated (and less well rated but ‘made in Canada’ stamped debt) in an environment where some of the deepest debt markets are not nearly as risk free as they used to be, obviously foreign investors gobble it up our debt greedily. What is the effect of that? well essentially the world values our debt more than our goods and services, so when that appetite for financial assets inflates the Canadian dollar, our exports will suffer (see the US current account deficit/reserve currency status/trade deficit quagmire). Now since Alberta doesn’t have any debt and hasn’t issued some for a while they can’t be guilty on that front. So who is exactly contributing to our soaring Looney from a financial assets trade perspective? The feds are! Alright since much of the stimulus package was spent in Ontario (G8/G20 summit spending, carmakers bailouts etc, etc…) maybe McGuinty should move to accuse the second biggest  new Canadian debt emitter… oh wait a minute, that’s Ontario, oops. So McGuinty’s spending problem is partly to blame for a high Canadian dollar not Alberta. Okay in all fairness international financial assets trade is not the only contributing factor to currency mouvements so let’s move on.

The gist of McGuinty’s argument was that Albertan energy sales are increasing the value of the CAD to the detriment of manufacturing. So he is implying that their is a a negative correlation between manufacturing exports and energy exports. That data does not support this claim one bit! When looking at seasonally adjusted and 2002 chained dollars (inflation adjusted) Canadian total energy product sales have risen by 24% since 2000 and total manufacturing (sum of statscan’s industrial goods, manufacturing and equipment, automotive parts categories) have gone down by 14% over the same periode would imply the Premier is right, However when looking at proportions the increase in energy sales is only of 40 billion yearly versus a 125 billion drop for total manufacturing. So basically if there actually was a one-for-one tradeoff between energy and manufacturing exports energy would only be responsible for ~32% of the decline. However when one looks at balance of trade in those subcategories and asks what percentage of net energy exports accounts for the decline of net manufacturing exports the answer is a measly ~4.5%. So to reiterate if there even was causality (which is not proven) it would be weak at best. Now that we’ve lain waste to McGuinty’s foolish idea that Alberta is guilty for his province’s hard times, let’s bring up one more point.

Ontario is now a have-not province. Ontario received upwards of 3 Billion dollars last year from equalization transfers. Alberta paid in over 8 Billion into equalization. Bottom line Ontario got some money from Alberta to pay for its social services. Methinks McGuinty owes Redford and Albertans an apology, don’t you?

In praise of all that is German

Germany hasn’t been getting a lot of slack of late. Between accusations of trying to succeed where they’ve failed in two previous World Wars – dominating Europe – or accusations scuttling the European Project out of selfishness, and again with cries that Germany is abandoning the Euro, the nation of sauerkraut and beer is in the throws of a full blown Greek tragedy (lol pun intended). Asides from the on camera superficial Merkozy marriage, no french love seems to be crossing the Rhin. Further compounding the courteous hate fest, Italian flirting has gone from invitations to the bunga bunga parties (most often refused anyways) to the sober and stale Monti ear whispering for more cash. Somehow, I don’t think encouragements from the euro-sceptic nationalisty Finns was the recognition Berlin technocrats were looking for. The Euro area is eerily looking like an Animal Farm in the throes of its Orwellian infancy. Need I really specify which Euro countries are acting like over-eager egalitarian PIIGS, hrum I mean pigs, seeking the overthrow of opulent and oppressive markets, hrum… I meant masters. All punning aside, I believe there may be a little lack of balance in the debate over fiscal and monetary policy proposals to the Euro area mess.

Let’s start by awarding praise where it is due and sing the virtues of the German machine, hrum… economy sorry forgot about the inter-temporal analogy bank. To my knowledge German policymakers are the only ones of any major economy who seem to have learned the lessons of history. This is no coincidence as not-repeating the errors of history has become part of German culture. Little children are taught at school about the immeasurable harm generations of their ancestors have wrought upon the world (maybe even too zealously). A cursory look at the lessons young children learn from Dortmund to Munich, leaves the history amateur with a few residual lessons in economic virtue, that we shall survey here:

1) Inflation = bad. How so? Well inflation leads to economic inefficiencies most notable of which is the rise of unemployment, which then leads to socio-political problems we need not raise here. To see just how hawkish they are monetarily, read anything on the Bundesbank or even the ECB.

2) Trade competition = good (especially when your winning). How so? The best buffer when in hard times is to have a trade surplus and savings. Germany has been at the forefront of multilateral trade talks, especially in Europe (see European Union history) but also internationally. I guess Germans remember how bad Smoot-Hawley was for everyone and how good the life has been since… well… 1946 I guess.

3) Hard work = prerequisite to 2). Now I know this might sound sacrilegious to all of us westerners getting used to resting on the laurels of previous generations hard work but bear with me. Our current level of wealth is tied if anything to previous generations working hard, earning dough, not spending but saving dough in the bank account, that dough being magically transformed by the financial industry into fixed capital formation, a.k.a. every single piece of equipment, factory infrastructure that buttresses our current economies. If you didn’t follow the flow working harder than your living standard would entail serves as the anvil of tomorrows wealth. Germans get that, they preach it, than they actually do it. This saving/underspending/fixed capital forming needs to happen at the household level, the firm’s level and the governmental one.

4) Mash up all of the above = hawkishness in every sphere of public policy (and private actually) = kicking the worlds butt economically.

So what has been going on exactly in Europe? following the above stated framework for success lets see where things went wrong. Europe was a place of high savings (or at least American savings though the Marshall Plan)a, hard working and rebuilding for while following WWII. No problems so far. Italy, Britain and France had thriving industries, peripheral Europe slowly started democratizing itself. Than they started moving towards the European Union. Savings and investment flows started getting a little complex at this point. Big Euro countries started saving for peripheral ones, sending money so that those countries could invest in infrastructure modern

isation and other stuff of the like. Eventually thy took a bunch of countries with a myriad of fiscal and monetary systems and patched them together into a big currency block. Germany kinda knew where this was going so they tried the  true and tested policies. They retrenched further into fiscal and macro-prudential austerity. So yes this national savings craze as measured by a current account surplus peaking at 7.4% of GDP just before the crisis hit in 08, did lead to some imbalances within the Euro block by depressing Euro wide inflation numbers and interest rates. The real trouble however wasn’t German economic virtue it was the rest of Euro countries, more particularly the PIIGS, reaction to these circumstances. How did they react, like all good socialisty, humanisty, mushy hearted westerners, they indulged in profligate entitlement spending. Riding on the coattails of previous generations of hard work and contemporary German virtue (i know redundant), they offered their people an easy life at low borrowing costs.

Then one day the masters hrum… markets, sorry, woke up and said “the break is over back to work”. The current crisis boils down to looking to the Germans and saying no we don’t want to work as hard as you! keep paying. Unfortunately markets tend to act like the tough love parents that they are and Germany seems content to not act like the over-indulgent parent its savings temporarily were. Now some might quibble that the crisis is one of solvency or simply liquidity needing some temporary patching to be corrected. What needs correcting is peripheral Europeans expectation of living standards they must go down! if they are one day to go up to Germany’s level. Increasing the ESM or EFSF or introducing eurobonds does not solve the problem. Even Angela Merkel’s suggestion of limiting federal governments deficits to 0.5% of GDP remains to timide a goal. Mario Monti is somewhat on the right track in Italy. Although his reforms are limited in scale they are in the right direction. A combination of fiscal austerity coupled with market liberalization is the equivalent of putting italians back to work. Less play more labour! is the key to making labour unions howl and incidentally generating long-term wealth. Let’s hope more european nations decide to go the german path to prosperity before the s*** really hits the fan.

Cius

Potash vs. Oil Sands, a policy dichotomy

With news of PetroChina International Investment Co. readying itself to be the sole owner of the undeveloped Mackay River in-situ project ~40 km Ouest of Fort McMurray, the question of Canada’s foreign takeover review scheme merits further attention than it’s been getting of late. The deal triggered by Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. owner of the remaining 40% stake not owned by PetoChina will lead to the latter buying the stake for an estimated $680 M Canadian dollars.

Now for those not aware, the Mackay river flows into the Athabasca river which itself flows into Athabasca Lake which outflows through Slave river and through a few national parks until the water system reaches its final destination in the North Arctic Sea. All that to say that the in-situ development finds itself in quite the environmentally sensitive region. Now, a foreign state owned company will be an environmental guarantor of the region. Why am I kicking up a fuss about this exemple of foreign Oil Sands ownership and not say, Statoil’s not far off operations. Is it maybe because Norwegians are something of green nuts while China is competing with Russia for most pollutated country in the World, maybe. Is it because Statoil is known for trying to maximize the return on Norwegian taxpayer dollar while PetroChina and other chinese primary ressource companies are known for attempting to distort markets for the gain of the motherland, probably.

The reason I raise this issue is because I personally disagreed with the Canadian federal government’s decision to oppose the BHP Billiton bid for Potash Corp of Saskatchewan, while I opposed the federal governments regulatory decision to allow PetroChina’s majority ownership and operating of Canadian natural ressource exploitations. So who between the Conservative government of Canada and myself is wrong while both hold seemingly inconsistent and paradoxical opinions? I’ll let you answer that once I’ve finished exposing my case.

Let’s start by raising a point that would seem to show inconsistency on behalf of the Government. The regulatory approval of PetroChina’s deal with Athabasca raised the feds no problem because it could only increase competition for the supply of Canadian Oil and increase the competition for demand in Canadian labour, win-win right? The decision to oppose the purchasing of Potash Corp. was one of opposing increased supply of Canadian potash (one of the worlds most popular agricultural fertilizers). Sudden policy shift or backtrack? Not really, here is a situation of two weights, two measures. Both ressources are considered ‘Strategic Ressources’ in Canada. However one is treated as a free market good while the other one is considered as legitimate producer collusion product, a.k.a. a cartel worthy product. In light of the Governments recent abolition of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly, their previous decision to protect the Saskatchewan potash cartel seems strange. Or maybe it doesn’t after all Alberta (where most of the Oil Sands are) is traditionally pro-market whereas Saskatchewan is traditionally left-leaning. Does lobbying by Provincial governments really explain a difference in policies. The real difference lies behind the fact that Oil production is extremely geographically atomized, thus it’s trade is quite competitive, potash on the other hand can only be found in a few regions of the World. One of the regions richest in potash is western Canada. Essentially the difference is that Canadians can get away with cartel-esque behaviour in potash but not in oil.

This demonstrates that if the conservatives in Canada are not consistent in their policies it is not for lack of reflection of pragmatic economic solutions, simply inconsistent and un-ideological ones. So we actually have two very different decisions made for pragmatic reasons. That just means I will have to raise two different objections!

Regarding the BHP Billiton takeover of Potash Corp. blocking. The main reason for blocking the takeover was because of the aforementioned cartel in potash. In Saskatchewan the export of potash outside of NAFTA is undertaken by a corporation called Canpotex (short for Canadian Potash Exporters), which effectively operates as a cartel controlling over 30% of the worlds potash production. BHP would have broken up the cartel in order to produce at capacity and sell freely. The Provincial governments belief was that it would have lost royalty revenue from the drop in per unit profit. Whether the government would have actually registered a drop in revenues following the decision is aside from the point. It represents a stark intervention into markets which should be unacceptable in a modern democracy. A short list of consequences include, higher fertilizer prices for such poor farmers as those found in India or Africa, damaged Aussie-Canadian relations, reduced attractiveness of Canada as an investment destination and countless other immeasurable and unimaginable damages to Canada and the World.

Unfortunately one bad decision tends to follow another in politics, let’s now turn our attention to the regulatory decision that paved the way for a foreign power’s state owned corporation buying up ressources in Canada. As a fervent classical-liberal and staunch internationalist, I am all in favour for increasing developing nations and less than democratic nations participation in Global trade. I think there is no better way to improve their economic and socio-political prospects, than permitting them to join the WTO and partake in international trade. Although these beliefs push me to reflexively accept international takeovers, I believe there are a few caveats needed to smooth things out. First problem is the lack of reciprocity. Chinese companies benefit from industrialized nations legal systems when investing in the West. Western multinationals do not benefit from such property protection when doing business in China. Let’s help China, let’s show them some tough love by telling them they can buy our ressources when our companies will get some respect in China. An important issue is that state owned corporations do not necessarily seek to maximize profits as much as maximize socio-economic and political priorities of their governments, whereas public companies always seek to maximize profit for their shareholders. From the economic literature I believe it is most evident to all that maximizing profit in a competitive environment is the key to increasing global welfare.

It is hence my view that the Government’s Foreign Takeover Review process should be aimed at differentiating between those companies who will seek to maximize profit through increased productivity, the real key to increased wealth, and those companies who may have alternate motives such as shifting wealth from one geography to another (like state owned corporations). Blocking foreign State’s proxies from buying our ressources and encouraging public companies to invest is good policy. Let’s hope that when the Canadian federal government finishes its review of the takeover process that will be the ensuing conclusion.