What I learned at IMF/WB meetings 1. No consensus on monetary policy. Most policy makers want to keep hiking aggressively, most market participants want central banks to slow. Best quote I heard: "When I drive into fog, I slow down." There's massive global uncertainty. Slow down!
2. Debt-to-GDP ratios are back! Many G10 countries have gov't debt that's higher than the UK (GB). Market focus is now squarely on them. #MMT is seen as totally discredited, by the rise in global inflation, by the collapse of the Yen and - most recently - by the UK experience...
3. Most think Ukraine will win and take back ALL its territory from Russia. Some even expect the war to end within a few months. No one thinks the war can drag on for a long time, i.e. Ukraine may be the new "transitory." Few are aware how precarious Ukraine's finances are...
4. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a total game changer for global capital flows. Front and center is China, where anecdotal evidence that new money is no longer being put to work by foreign investors lines up with our flows going flat. Saudi Arabia is also under scrutiny...
5. Lots of focus on deteriorating market liquidity. This is attributed to market makers at their risk limits due to volatile commodity prices. It's also linked to high uncertainty (Ukraine, Taiwan) and hawkish central banks who seem determined to hike until something breaks...
6. German deindustrialization. Focus on Germany is intense. Worries of energy rationing are fading, given growing evidence that energy consumption is falling. Instead, there is growing focus on the medium-term, with manufacturing leaving Germany for locations with cheap energy...
7. Growing dismay over de facto Euro zone spread control. Wide-spread consternation that the volatility of Italy's spread was near all-time lows into the Sep. 25 election. Spread control is seen as unsustainable in a global rising rate environment. Lots of skepticism of ECB TPI.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Take aways from the IMF/WB meetings 1. European denial: Europeans converged on DC this week. The degree of denial on the shift in geopolitics that Russia's invasion of Ukraine signifies is alarming. Short-termism rules. A strategic vision is woefully missing. A huge problem...
2. European strategic autonomy: there's a surprising number of folks who - in the event of a Trump win - advocate a European pivot towards China. Seriously? China allied itself firmly with Russia in its invasion of Ukraine. You may not like Trump, but this would be a disaster...
3. End to war in Ukraine: underlying this is a view in Europe that a rapid end to the war is good for the EU, the epitome of EU short-termism. Europeans crave an end to uncertainty, but that won't come by conceding Ukrainian territory to Putin. Putin will only be emboldened...
The Euro zone is like a bad game. There's high debt and low debt countries. The goal of high debt countries is to shift as much of their debt onto low debt countries, so they never have to pay down debt. Crazy thing is: low debt countries allow this to happen. High debt wins...
The key balance sheet for this debt shift is the ECB, where a complex jargon exists to hide this debt transfer. For example, high debt means yields periodically spike when there's global shocks. In the ECB vernacular, this gets called "fragmentation" and has to be prevented...
Calling yield spikes "fragmentation" sounds like there's financial market dysfunction, when markets are really just pricing a risk premium. Only way to prevent that risk premium is for the ECB - over time - to buy lots of debt from high debt countries. That's the debt transfer...
Western gaslighting on Russia sanctions 1. The German word for gaslighting is "Nebelkerze," which means "fog candle." Many western commodity experts and journalists loudly claim the G7 oil price cap can't work, while endorsing financial sanctions on Russia. They're gaslighting...
2. It's exactly the other way around. Financial sanctions on Russia can't work, while the G7 cap is the only way to squeeze Putin. We sanctioned some of Russia's banks (red), so money just flows via non-sanctioned banks (blue). Putin still gets ALL the hard currency he wants...
3. The driver of Russia's hard currency inflows is the current account surplus. If you sanction some banks, you're just redirecting financial flows. The fix is to sanction ALL banks, which is equivalent to a trade embargo (since Putin can no longer get paid and won't export)...
A. Russia sanctions 1. Financial sanctions on Russia don't work 2. We sanctioned Russia central bank (red) 3. Russia switched to using Gazprombank (blue) 4. Russia still earned the same amount of cash 5. Only way to fix this is to sanction all banks 6. That's like an oil embargo
B. Lesson is that you can't hurt a current account surplus country by sanctioning some of its banks. You have to sanction all banks, but that's like a trade embargo, since Putin won't export oil if he can't get paid. The G7 cap recognizes this. It targets the current account...
C. People who support financial sanctions and criticize the G7 cap ignore 18 months of data. We have 18 months of sanctions and a G7 cap that was undercut from the beginning. The result: Russia is back to earning big "excess" current account surpluses. Only the G7 cap fixes this.
IMF/WB meetings in Marrakesh 1. Deep gloom beneath the surface. At best, the US is seen as divided and distracted. At worst, it's seen as weak. Wars in Ukraine and Israel are symptoms of this. Many think the US will get tested more and more, so geopolitical risk will keep rising.
2. A meta question that hangs over everything: "What if Trump gets re-elected next year?" Such an outcome is seen as being very negative for Ukraine and Europe. Even if it doesn't happen, Putin and others have every incentive to sow confusion and instability ahead of Nov. 2024...
3. Growing recognition that popular resistance is rising towards funding Ukraine and combatting climate change. Mounting resentment in EM at G10 double standards. For example, Germany fires up coal power plants, even as much of EM gets lectured on the need for a green transition.
@steve_hanke Argentina has a population of 46 million. El Salvador has a population of 6 million, Panama has 4 million. Both countries are thus much smaller than Argentina, not to mention the fact that El Salvador has much lower per capita GDP. Not good comparators for Argentina at all...
@steve_hanke Ecuador has a population of 18 million, smaller than Argentina but better than the countries you listed. Ecuador - like Argentina - is a commodity exporter, which is key. Falling commodity prices often coincide with a soaring Dollar, which is a double whammy for dollarizers...
@steve_hanke Now let's go back to my chart. Most of Latin America did NOT dollarize. Instead, central banks were made independent, inflation was brought down, currencies were allowed to float and real GDP went up. There is no law of nature that says this cannot also be done in Argentina...