Blog space, real space & political space

Tex over at pre-whacked snakes? notes

“I just realised John Quiggin and I work at the same place. I even help train some of his fellow staff and students.

This doesn’t bother me, but it might bother him…..”

Not really, but it does give rise to some interesting thoughts on various kinds of proximity. We’re obviously close in physical space, but in different quadrants of The Political BlogMap. However, since I mainly focus on economics and Tex on “warblogging”, there’s not too much conflict there. We don’t have direct proximity in terms of links (slackness on my part), but the Ozblog community is small enough for two degrees of separation to link almost everyone.
Finally, we’re obviously culturally close enough to share an affinity for The Simpsons

Religious war breaks out in Oz Blogdom

After years of civilised discussion of such low-intensity topics as Islam v Christianity, Israel v Palestine and asylum-seekers v Ruddock, the peace of Oz blogdom has been shattered.Gareth Parker has broached the forbidden topic: Mac v Windoze.
With any luck, this should produce a flame war that will make Kaus v Krugman look like the light from a damp match. Naturally, since Macs are the computers of truth, justice and user-friendliness, we will prevail.

Scary stories 2: The derivatives crisis

Another look at possible disaster scenarios for the world economy, this one perhaps the scariest of all. The starting point is a crisis in derivatives markets arising when ‘counterparties’ (those owing money on the transaction) for one of the big New York banks, such as J.P. Morgan Chase, refuse to pay up, either because they can’t or because they allege fraud. This has already happened in a small ($1 billion) way in the case of Mahonia, one of the shonky subsidiaries set up by Enron with the aid of JP Morgan. If it happened on a large scale it could cause a cascade of defaults. How big could it get? The short answer is “Huge”

“At the end of 2002’s first quarter, the notional value of derivatives contracts involving U.S. commercial banks and trust companies was $45.9 trillion, according to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s bank derivatives report. ”

That’s trillion, not billion. For comparison, annual US GDP is around $10 trillion.

The ratios involved are staggering. JP Morgan alone is involved in assets with a gross value of 23.2 trillion, or around 500 times the firm’s capital base. This is comparable to the leverage exercised by Long Term Credit Management before its collapse. But before you panci too much, virtually all of this is hedged in some way.

(“Notional value” is the total value of the contract, and J.P. Morgan’s direct exposure to those derivatives was $51 billion as of Dec. 31, or less than 1% of the notional value, according to the firm. About 80% of the company’s exposure was with investment-grade counterparties.)

The bulk of the exposure is in interest rate swaps, which are fairly well understood and seem to pose only modest risks in themselves. But there’s still around $1 trillion in more recent derivatives involving securitisation of various kinds of debts. This securitisation is sound only if the credit rating agencies have got their risk assessments right, which in turn requires that the accounts on which those assessments are based should be valid. A few years ago, when the market in debt derivatives was starting up, this assumption seemed safe enough, but now it looks a lot more dubious. The big danger is that defaults in the debt derivatives market could spread to the much larger interest rate derivatives markets.

Who believes this stuff? As Aaron Task at The Street notes, the gold bugs do “For some time now, years literally, the hard-core bears have been talking about a “sum of all fears” scenario involving J.P. Morgan’s exposure to derivatives in general, and bearish bets on gold in particular”. The association with gold bugs tends to discredit the idea, but there are some more serious advocates, such as the guys at PrudentBear.com – The One-Stop Shop for the Bear Case
A couple of weeks ago, this kind of fear spread to the bearish side of the market in general, with a wave of rumours about problems about derivative problems at the big banks, particularly JP Morgan and Citibank. They were successfully hosed down and this contributed to the big rally last week.

How likely is it to happen? In view of the extent to which standards have been compromised in the financial world, some significant breakdown in derivative markets, leading to the failure of at least some players, seems more likely than not. On the other hand, the full-scale meltdown scenario, while far more plausible today than even a year ago, remains a low probability event.

More on social democracy, socialism and capitalism

Don Arthur has a thoughtful response to my piece on the resilience of social democracy. He criticises the kind of anthropomorphism which sees “capitalism” as an intentional agent, and writes:

“In contrast to the radical left, social democrats never went in for wholesale state planning. By and large they were happy to create an environment in which both businesses and individuals could pursue their own goals. It meant owning things like hospitals, transport, utilities and other basic infrastructure, but it didn’t extend to radically transforming society. This is why the collapse of the socialist vision (aka ‘the triumph of capitalism’) has not destabilized social democrats the way it has old Marxists and new leftists.

What damaged social democracy was the collapse of Keynesianism which came with the oil shocks and stagflation of the 1970s. But that’s another story…”

I plan to take up this story soon.

Scary stories Volume 1: The English-speaking currency crisis

Could “it” (1929 or something similar) happen again? Probably not, but there has been no time in the past 20 years when the world and Australian economies have looked as vulnerable as they do today. For those who want to start getting scared, there’s an ample supply of stories about how it could all unravel. This will be one of them.
Following the crises in numerous Asian countries in 1997-98 and numerous South American countries in 2001-02, currency speculators suddenly notice that most of the English-speaking countries are running large current account deficits, and decide this is a problem. There is a panic run on the US, Australian and NZ dollars and perhaps on sterling. Hedge funds get caught with short positions and collapse, pushing major banks to insolvency. At this point, emergency measures, like bank holidays, are needed, and the story fades to black …

How plausible is this scenario? Not very, given that most of the speculators are located in English-speaking countries themselves. But, as
Tim Colebatch notes, Australia has more foreign debt, relative to GDP than Uruguay, which was just forced to close its banks. Given a few more years of big deficits, the US will be in the same position. A dramatic collapse seems unlikely. But it seems equally unlikely that the era of big current account deficits can continue much longer.

Waiting for the explosion

Surprisingly little reaction so far to the cover story of the latest TIME Magazine. Entitled “Before Sept. 11 — The Secret History”, it asserts that bungling and infighting in the incoming Bush administration caused a Clinton administration plan for a concerted attack on al-Qaeda to be shelved. The only response I’ve seen so far was from Andrew Sullivan and was fairly lame.
I guess all those warbloggers must sleep in on Monday mornings.

Some surprising alliances

The debate over the privatisation of Telstra is producing some interesting alignments. Former minister, Bronwyn Bishop agrees, with Lindsay Tanner and me, that Telstra should not be allowed to buy a television station. Over at the Evatt Foundation, I have a friendly disagreement with Ros Eason, who thinks Telstra should not be compelled to divest things like pay-TV. I argue that renationalisation & divesture is the only way to go
Meanwhile, Ken Davidson demolishes, yet again, the spurious case for privatisation being put up by the government.