Home Blog Page 1052

Building Trust in Artificial Intelligence Predictions

By Vyacheslav Polonski and Jane Zavalishina

Whether you like it or not, we will soon all rely on expert recommendations generated by artificial intelligence (AI) systems at work. But out of all the possible options, how can we trust that the AI will choose the best option for us, rather than the one we are most likely to agree with? A whole slew of new applications is now being developed that try to foster more trust in AI recommendations, but what they actually do is training machines to be better liars.

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to collaborate with a robot-colleague at work? With the AI revolution looming on the horizon, it is clear that the rapid advances of machine learning are poised to reshape the workplace. In many ways, you are already relying on AI help today, when you search for something on Google or when you scroll through the Newsfeed on Facebook. Even your fridge and your toothbrush may be already powered by AI.

We have come to trust these invisible algorithms without even attempting to understand how they work. Like electricity, we simply trust that when we turn on the light switch, the lights will go on – no intricate knowledge of atoms, energy or electric circuits is necessary. But when it comes to more complex machine learning systems, there seems to be no shortage of pundits and self-proclaimed experts who have taken a firm stance on AI transparency, demanding that AI systems are first fully understood before they are implemented.

At the same time, big corporations are already eagerly adopting new AI systems to deal with the deluge of data in their business operations. The more data there is to collect and analyse, the more they rely on AI to make better forecasts and choose the best course of action. Some of the most advanced AI systems are already able to make operational decisions that exceed the capacities of human experts. So whether we like it or not, it’s time to get ready for the arrival of our new AI colleagues at work.

The Watson Dilemma

As in any other working relationship, the most essential factor for a successful human-machine collaboration is trust. But given the complexity of machine learning algorithms, how can we be sure that we can rely on the seemingly fail-safe predictions generated by the AI? If all we have is one recommended course of action, with little to no explanation why this course of action is the best of all possible options, who is to say that we should trust it?

This problem is perhaps best illustrated by the case of IBM’s Watson for Oncology programme. Using one of the world’s most powerful supercomputer systems to recommend the best cancer treatment to doctors seemed like an audacious undertaking straight out of sci-fi movies. The AI promised to deliver top-quality recommendations on the treatment of 12 cancers that accounted for 80% of the world’s cases. As of today, over 14,000 patients worldwide have received advice based on the recommendations generated by Watson’s suite of oncology solutions.

However, when doctors first interacted with Watson they found themselves in a rather difficult situation. On the one hand, if Watson provided guidance about a treatment that coincided with their own opinions, physicians did not see much value in Watson’s recommendations. The supercomputer was simply telling them what they already know, and these recommendations did not change the actual treatment. This may have given physicians some peace of mind, providing them with more confidence in their own decisions, but did not result in improved patient survival rates.

On the other hand, if Watson generated a recommendation that contradicted the experts’ opinion, oncologists would conclude that Watson was not competent enough. For example, a Danish hospital reported to have abandoned Watson after discovering that its oncologists disagreed with Watson in over 66% of cases. When doctors disagreed, Watson was not able to explain why its treatment was plausible, nor how the AI programme arrived at its conclusion. Its machine learning algorithms were simply too complex to be fully understood by humans. This caused even more mistrust and disbelief, leading many physicians to ignore the seemingly outlandish AI recommendations and stick to their own expertise in oncology.

A Crisis of Confidence

If Watson generated a recommendation that contradicted the experts’ opinion, oncologists would conclude that Watson was not competent enough.

Despite all the technological advancements, we still seem to deeply lack confidence in AI predictions. This can be explained by a combination of technological and psychological factors: the algorithmic complexity of AI systems, the fear of losing control of a situation and the anxiety of interacting with something we do not understand. This is reinforced by fairly common cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias and the somewhat irrational belief in human superiority over machines.

Usually, building trust with human co-workers implies repeated interactions that help us better understand our colleagues. For thousands of years, humans worked with each other through explanation and mutual understanding. If we can understand how the others think, we can form reasonable expectations about what they are going to do next. This understanding typically facilitates a psychological feeling of safety, resulting in a more open and collaborative work culture.

By contrast, when a supercomputer like IBM Watson produces a recommendation, this outcome is typically based on thousands of weak signals in the data and their interactions. In theory, there might be a detailed explanation, but it is often too difficult for humans to trace back. Even trivial AI recommender systems face the same problem, because they tend to provide recommendations out of a “black-box”. Too often, it is difficult to convey to human collaborators that the machine has learned the right lessons without being explicitly programmed to do so. As such, the complexity of AI decisions continues to challenge the human mind, provoking more scepticism and mistrust.

In Machines We Trust?

If AI is to live up to its full potential, we have to find a way to get people to trust it, particularly if it produces recommendations that radically differ from what we are normally used to.

There are two ways out of this crisis of confidence. The first one is more scientific: rigorous trials, experiments and measurements of outcomes that are causally linked to the new AI systems. This approach is widely used in applications, ranging from digital marketing to industrial production. But in many cases the costs of this approach are too high both in monetary and ethical terms, e.g. when expensive equipment is involved or when human life is at risk. As a case in point, when IBM Watson suggests a new oncology treatment, its recommendations need to be heavily scrutinised. This involves recruiting patients, testing of results and the publication of studies in peer-reviewed scientific journals. It is easy to see that this approach may not be always feasible, especially in the context of time-sensitive medical decisions.

The other approach to building trust and confidence in machine predictions is through post-hoc explanation. In addition to the primary optimisation function, a secondary algorithm is implemented that generates detailed explanations of what is going on inside the machine, akin to a translator from machine speak to human speak. For example, the fintech “unicorn” Stripe uses this technique to make customers trust its anti-fraud decisions that are made by machine learning algorithms. Similarly, the political technology start-up Avantgarde Analytics has recently begun implementing machine learning algorithms to target campaign messages to potential voters. In the interest of transparency, a secondary algorithm is tasked to provide detailed explanations to voters on how their data is being used during the election campaign.

The Machiavellian Machine

Another AI company, SalesPredict, went one step further by asking: can we generate not just any explanation, but the most effective explanation? As early as 2014, they developed a recommender system for sales lead scoring that used machine learning to optimise for the plausibility of an AI explanation. In this case, the machine was instructed to optimise for the likelihood of its recommendation being accepted by a human collaborator. Using reinforcement learning techniques, the AI considered people’s emotional perceptions and evolved the way it communicated its recommendations. If the human operator first rejects an AI recommendation, the machine will try again to come up with something that makes more sense to the human. In other words, the AI tries to design a more persuasive explanation for its human colleagues – regardless of what is actually going on inside the model. As Chief Data Scientist of SalesPredict writes, it was about getting the user excited, rather than producing the most accurate prediction.

By teaching the AI to identify a persuasive and plausible human-friendly explanation, we are essentially teaching the machine to be a better liar. And this is especially problematic if the machine is built on notions of social influence and irrational decision-making from behavioural psychology.

Even though this “workaround” works well in some contexts, it could result in some unintended social consequences. In particular, the danger of this approach is that by teaching the AI to identify a persuasive and plausible human-friendly explanation, we are essentially teaching the machine to be a better liar. And this is especially problematic if the machine is built on notions of social influence and irrational decision-making from behavioural psychology.

Since the machine optimises for the probability of a solution being accepted by a human collaborator, it may prioritise what we want to hear over what we need to hear. This could produce overly simplified, human-digestible predictions that tend to forego potential gains in productivity. Just think about what happened when a Wired editor decided to like everything in his Facebook Newsfeed; after two days, the algorithm prioritised clickbait content until his feed consisted exclusively of cat videos and BuzzFeed lists.

There is a clear trade-off between AI explainability and efficiency that taps into a deepening sense of disquiet. Pushing for more human-friendly AI solutions might just as well mean making the AI less efficient and more insincere. In other words, instead of asking “how can I find the most accurate and fair solution to this problem”, the machine could ask: “what do I need to say to make the human believe me?” Taken to its logical conclusion, what we have might have accomplished here is building the next generation of supercomputers that are trained to expertly manipulate humans in the rush to gain acceptance and plausibility.

An Algorithmic Leap of Faith

People have always been mistrustful of new technologies. But history shows that even the biggest sceptics eventually concede and get used to new technological realities. For example, in the early days of automobiles, British policy-makers introduced the Red Flag Act. This act required cars to be accompanied by three people, and at least one of them was supposed to wave a red flag in front of the car at all times. Of course, this act
undermined the advantages of using an automobile in the most fundamental way. But society simply did not trust these “horseless carriages” enough to allow them on the roads without these additional safety precautions.

The Red Flag Act was repealed 30 years later; not because automobiles became significantly safer in 1896, but simply because people got used to them. The crippling anxiety faded away and there was a collective desire to take advantage of all the benefits of driving a car. As history shows, moral panics are frequently followed by a more pragmatic approach to technology.

There are notable parallels here for the regulation of AI. Advantages offered by advances in machine learning will eventually outweigh the initial scepticism about its implementation. But if regulators continue to stubbornly press for more AI explainability, they could undermine the very potential of machine learning, akin to a new Red Flag Act for AI. In turn, the increased public scrutiny of algorithms would put the heat on developers to create more manipulative AI systems that produce plausible but misleading explanations at scale.

Obviously, this is not exactly the best starting point for a good working relationship between humans and machines. It takes a giant leap of faith to allow machines that are smarter than us into our lives; to welcome them into a realm of work historically led by humans; to allow them to shape our decisions and everyday experiences. In this future, trust is the most essential ingredient in virtually every type of human-machine collaboration.

The bad news is that it only takes one Machiavellian machine to shatter the foundation of trust. But the good news is that we can build more confidence in machine predictions if we learn from past mistakes, conduct proper experiments and judge AI systems fairly by the results they produce, rather than the explanations they come up with.

About the Authors

Dr. Vyacheslav Polonski is a researcher at the University of Oxford and a member of the World Economic Forum Expert Network. He is also the founder and CEO of Avantgarde Analytics, a machine learning startup specialising in algorithmic campaigning. He holds a PhD in computational social science and is a frequent speaker at international conferences on AI accountability and governance.

Jane Zavalishina is the CEO of Yandex Data Factory – an industrial AI company belonging to Yandex, one of Europe’s largest internet companies. Jane is a regular voice at international events on AI-related topics. She also serves on the World Economic Forum’s Global Future Councils. Jane was recently named in Silicon Republic’s Top 40 Women in Tech as an Inspiring Leader.

Digitisation asks Fundamental Questions of the Accountancy Sector

By Ben Laker

Estimated at $23 billion, the Digital transformation market is growing rapidly across the globe, with 23 percent of activity residing in the UK, 21 percent in Australia and 20 percent in the US.

According to Source Global Research $5 billion of the $23 is serviced by the Big Four consulting firms, who together hold 21 percent of the market. 12 percent is captured by Deloitte, the current market leader who conclude that “strategy, not technology, drives digital transformation”. This view challenges widely held consensus, but supporting research within the MIT Sloan Management Review and Deloitte digital business study suggests that the strength of digital technologies – social, mobile, analytics and cloud – doesn’t lie in the technologies individually. Instead, it stems from how companies integrate them to transform their businesses and how they work, a finding consistent with our own research. New capabilities make new solutions possible, and needed solutions stimulate demand for new capabilities, for as Capgemini Consulting suggest, all sectors are urgently required to “unleash the transformation potential offered by digital innovation”. Yet despite this, many sectors remain somewhat lethargic to change. One sector in particular is accounting, of whom digitisation asks three fundamental questions.

When will robots be doing our taxes?

Currently, the sector is subject to pressure on margins as customers are being guided by the likes of HMRC to take advantage of simplified and streamlined ways of collecting and submitting accounting data. Other customers are taking advantage of cloud based solutions and undertaking many routine accounting activities in advance of invoking the service of their accountants. This means that many of the traditional accounting services are being automated or undertaken as part of “customer self-service”. As a result and from the audit firm’s perspective many routine tasks are being simplified and rationalised and these process improvements are being passed on to the end customer due to the service becoming more and more commoditised. This perspective is executed against an ever increasing requirement and expectation of quality and integrity of opinion – which essentially means everyone wants it done cheaper, but with more accountability on the shoulders of accountants.

It is this accountability which according to Vasant Dhar, professor at the Stern School of Business, means that robots are indeed coming close to the audit process. They provide the only solution to meet a growing expectancy of integrity of opinion. Humans are likely to get more and more comfortable with machines helping with taxes explains professor Dhar. “Eventually, many of us will trust them enough to compose the entire return for us to sign.”

What value added services are accountants developing?

The rise of automation and added competition in the accounting industry is creating pressures to compete for business using pricing alone. However, this is a losing proposition. Firms looking to compete on price require more clients in order to cover costs, leaving accountants less time per client to provide quality services that can retain existing clients, generate better margins and reduce the immense pressure to add clients.

As a result, the accounting profession looks to focus on other “added-value” services to compensate for the decreasing revenue streams from traditional service offerings. This will drive a cart and horse through traditional model of the accounting industry as they will need to consider other ways of adding value and creating new revenue streams. As a result many firms will transition from typical compliance-related work, such as taxes, payroll and general bookkeeping, defined as Type 1 services.

The future lies in Type 2 services, which provide opportunities to deepen existing relationships through upselling, or selling more expensive versions of existing services, and through cross-selling, or providing new services to existing clients. However, this type of activity requires a complete change of beliefs, and this leads to a third question, more fundamental than the previous:

What beliefs held by the accountancy profession should change?

Our recent research study across the spectrum of performance comprised of 20,000 hours of analyses and interviews with thousands of employees from organisations including Deloitte and PwC. We conclude that the secret code behind consistent, high-level success in sales is the beliefs held, not behaviours demonstrated.

We conclude that the secret code behind consistent, high-level success in sales is the beliefs held, not behaviours demonstrated.

As we believe, so we will behave. Beliefs are at our very core, and in order to behave in a way that leads to step change, accountants need to radically shift their thinking. Re-education processes exist for the traditional audit partner who will see their role and revenue streams change. However, traditional training and development programmes focus on behaviours, not beliefs. This means that the focus is on the symptom, not the route cause. As such, audit partners will waste their time and firm resources, and not leverage Type 2 service opportunities.

Only training and development that focus on beliefs will lead to a change in mindset as well as a potential change in capability, and the way in which they interface with their clients. Beliefs provide us with the motivation to deploy certain talents or skills. They may promote or inhibit certain behaviours. And they have a major impact upon our sense of self, of who we are, and why we do what we do. It was Sir Winston Churchill who said, “To improve is to change. To be perfect is to change often.” We may not ever be perfect, but we can believe that it’s good to try. If we hold this belief, we are prepared to accept that the way we have done things in the past may not be what leads us to future success. We are also accepting the premise that change is good. Who knows, we might even become better than we ever thought possible. As someone else said, “It’s only failure if you stop trying.”

This article includes insights from The Sales Persons Secret Code (LID, 2017), a global study into how salespeople behave and driven, which reveals the secret code behind consistent and high-level success. Based on 20,000 hours of research, this book is for any sales professional, or indeed anyone involved in the sales process of their company, who wants to learn the secrets of successful selling. www.salespersons-secret-code.com

About the Author

Ben Laker is Leader of the Analytics Practice at Transform Performance International. Ben helps Fortune 500 firms including Apple, American Express, Cisco, Dow Chemical and Liberty Global to do more, more quickly with more certainty using machine learning and big data derived from world-class research. A Harvard Business Review contributor and prolific author of thought-leadership, his insights are published by Forbes, The New York Times and The Economist among others.

 

Notes

1. https://www.capgemini-consulting.com/technology-transformation
2. https://www.wired.com/2017/02/robots-will-soon-taxes-bye-bye-accounting-jobs/
3. https://dupress.deloitte.com/dup-us-en/topics/digital-transformation/digital-transformation-strategy-digitally-mature.html

Meghan Markle Marriage to Prince Harry Proves US Taxes Can Be a Royal Pain

wedding of prince and meghan markle

By Robert W. Wood         

Worldwide, the IRS can create a degree of uneasiness for nearly anyone who has any US connections. Apple, Google and other tech giants may famously have billions in untaxed profits sitting offshore. But individuals who are American citizens or permanent US residents (holding green cards) must still report their worldwide income to the IRS. For them, offshore does not mean untaxed.

Plus, if you hold a green card, you are conclusively presumed to be a US resident taxpayer who must report worldwide income, even if you only occasionally visit the US.  Even entirely foreign individuals and companies that have any US source income must report to the IRS. And reporting can mean audits, statutes of limitation, and worry. In short, nearly everyone, it seems, has some fears about the IRS.

Even if you are rich and famous – and perhaps even if you are royal – you may need to be constantly alert for tax missteps. The anticipated nuptials of American actress Meghan Markle and British Prince Harry seem like a fairy tale that can bring a smile to almost everyone. Leave it to complex US tax laws to spoil it with tax problems.

The taxes at stake could be huge. Buckingham Palace has announced that Markle will become a British citizen after marriage. Yet tax lawyers are the first to point out that Meghan Markle’s US citizenship could cause major tax headaches for Britain’s royal family.

Taxes and Asset Disclosures

After all, unless she renounces her American citizenship, no matter where she lives, she will have to continue filing US tax returns, plus the Foreign Bank Account Reporting forms known as FBARs, every year. Even if all of her income is earned in the UK (with all taxes paid in the UK), that doesn’t matter. She must still report her worldwide income to the IRS.

Perhaps even worse, she must keep disclosing her non-US assets too. As a new member of the Royal Family, that could become a sticky wicket for Britain. One can just imagine that the IRS could be rubbing its institutional hands together with anticipation just thinking about that tax audit.

It isn’t just income that the IRS wants to know about. It’s assets too, maybe even some royal ones.

Many a dual country couple innocently starts filing US taxes together, and that can be a very costly mistake. Year in and year out, 95 percent of married couples file joint tax returns, often as a knee-jerk reaction. Yet that simple step makes each spouse liable for everything on the return – and anything that might not be on the return.

Markle will surely be advised to file taxes separately. Thus, Prince Harry will surely, therefore, not be caught within the US tax net. But if they have children, what about all of them viz. the IRS? If they are born as dual US and UK citizens, they could have big tax problems too.

Of course, taxes are only part of the problem. The disclosures in this case might be as bad. It isn’t just income that the IRS wants to know about. It’s assets too, maybe even some royal ones.

FATCA

FATCA, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, is a uniquely American law. It was passed in 2010, and is now ramped up worldwide. It requires an annual Form 8938 filing with the IRS that could end up involving royal assets.

FATCA spans the globe with an unparalleled network of reporting. America requires foreign banks and governments to hand over secret bank data about depositors. Non-US banks and financial institutions around the world must reveal American account details or risk big penalties.

Markle may well follow London’s former Mayor, Boris Johnson, now Britain’s Foreign Secretary. Having been born in New York but raised in Britain, Johnson was a dual citizen of the US and UK But he had a well-publicised run-in with the IRS over a London home sale. The sale proceeds were tax-exempt in the UK, but they were taxable in the US, despite the fact that then Mayor Boris had not lived in the US for decades. The ensuing tax bill eventually led him to renounce his American citizenship.

Renouncing citizenship is clearly trending. The number of renunciations for the first quarter of 2017 was 1,313. The second quarter’s list went up to 1,759, the second highest quarterly number ever. The total for calendar 2016 was 5,411, while 2015 had 4,279 published expatriates. Despite the official list, many who leave are not counted, although both the IRS and FBI track Americans who renounce.

Expats have clamored for tax relief for years. Even if you are not royal, America’s global income tax compliance and disclosure laws can be a burden, especially for US persons living abroad. Many foreign banks do not want American account holders.

Americans living and working in foreign countries must generally report and pay tax where they live. But they must also continue to file taxes in the US, where reporting is based on their worldwide income. A foreign tax credit often does not eliminate double taxes. Annual foreign bank account reports called FBARs carry big civil and even criminal penalties. The civil penalties alone can consume the entire balance of an account.

Expensive Exit

Ironically, even leaving America can be costly. America charges $2,350 to hand in your passport, a fee that is more than twenty times the average of other high-income countries. The US hiked the fee to renounce by 422 percent, as previously there was a $450 fee to renounce, and no fee to relinquish. Now, there is a $2,350 fee either way.

The State Department said raising the fee was about demand and paperwork. Perhaps, but in any case, the number of American expatriations kept increasing. Moreover, to exit, one generally must prove 5 years of IRS tax compliance. And getting into IRS compliance can be expensive, and worrisome.

There is a certain Kafkaesque air to it all. For some, a reason to get into compliance is to renounce, which itself can be expensive. Apart from all of the compliance costs, the US also has an exit tax on renouncing. If you have a net worth greater than $2 million, or have average annual net income tax for the 5 previous years of $162,000 or more, you can pay an exit tax.

It is a capital gain tax, calculated as if you sold your property when you left. It isn’t just for US citizens. A long-term (8 year) resident giving up a Green Card can be required to pay the exit tax too. Sometimes, planning and valuations can reduce or eliminate the tax. Even so, the tax worries can be real, even for those who will not face it.

Mistakes v. Willfulness

To be sure, Ms. Markle and Prince Harry surely have an elite cadre of tax advisers. In that sense, tax missteps from this soon to be royal pair seem unlikely. But many others are not so lucky and may make material and often innocent mistakes. Under US tax law, some mistakes can be forgiven.

However, some errors clearly are not forgivable, and it can be surprising how the criteria are applied. You may believe your inadvertence was non-wilful, but the IRS may not agree. And with FATCA and over 50,000 voluntary disclosures on offshore banking and financial arrangements that name names, the IRS has a treasure trove of data.

Taxpayers should consider their facts carefully, and get some advice about their own circumstances.

If you knew you were supposed to accurately report to the IRS and you failed, the IRS may say you were “wilful”. That legal term can mean large civil penalties or even potential criminal liability. What’s more, the IRS and prosecutors use a concept of “wilful blindness”.

Essentially, willful blindness involves a conscious effort to avoid learning about the IRS income tax rules or about FBAR reporting. Willfulness involves a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. In taxes, it applies for civil and to criminal violations. The failure to learn of filing requirements, coupled with efforts to conceal the facts, can spell willfulness. Watch out for conduct meant to conceal, such as:

  • Setting up trusts or corporations to hide your ownership.
  • Filing some tax forms and not others.
  • Keeping two sets of books.
  • Telling your bank not to send statements.
  • Using code words over the phone.
  • Cash deposits and cash withdrawals.
  • Moving money from one bank to another when banks don’t want undisclosed American accounts.

Even if you can explain one failure to comply, repeated failures can morph conduct from inadvertent neglect into reckless or even deliberate disregard of the rules. Taxpayers should consider their facts carefully, and get some advice about their own circumstances. Is all of this worry enough to dampen a Royal marriage?

Surely Meghan Markle and Prince Harry will navigate the US tax morass deftly. And their marriage is still a nice story. But for many people caught within the US tax and disclosure net, it can be hard to get to a fairly-tale ending.

Photograph by Matt Dunham / AP

About the Author

Robert W. Wood is a tax lawyer representing clients worldwide from offices at Wood LLP, in San Francisco (www.WoodLLP.com). He is the author of numerous tax books, and writes frequently about taxes for Forbes.com, Tax Notes, and other publications. This discussion is not intended as legal advice.

A Review of Central Bankers at the End of Their Rope By Dr. Jack Rasmus

Close-up Of Businessman Examining Coins With Magnifier On Desk

By Lawrence Souza

 

Introduction

If you talk to some monetary, fiscal, macroeconomic, and financial institutional and capital market economists, some would argue that Central Banks are at the end of their rope; have lost their credibility and risk losing their independence.

Dr. Jack Rasmus book, Central Bankers at the End of Their Rope? Monetary Policy and the Coming Depression is the latest in a growing literature building the case against the U.S. Federal Reserve (the Central Bank of Central Banks), European Central Bank, Japanese Central Bank, The Bank of England, People’s Bank of China, etc.; their unorthodox monetary policy response to the financial crisis; policy response to asset price bubbles, financial (market) crisis (crashes), and recessions since 1995; lack of macro-prudential supervision and oversight; and consistent policy mistakes based on their lack of understanding of how the world and economy really works, dates back as far as 1929 (See supporting Literature in the Appendix).

In Dr. Rasmus book, he looks at:

1. Problems and Contradictions of Central Banking

2. A Brief History of Central Banking

3. The U.S. Federal Reserve Bank: Origins and Toxic Legacies

4. Greenspan’s Bank: The Typhon Monster Released

5. Bernanke’s Bank: Greenspan’s Put (Option) on Steroids

6. The Bank of Japan: Harbinger of Things That Came

7. The European Central Bank under German Hegemony

8. The Bank of England’s Last Hurrah: From QE to BREXIT

9. The People’s Bank of China Chases Its Shadows

10. Yellen’s Bank: From Taper Tantrums to Trump Trade

11. Why Central Banks Fail

12. Revolutionising Central Banking in the Public Interest: Embedding Change Via Constitutional Amendment

Dr. Rasmus builds a methodical case against historical and current central bank ideologies and orthodoxy; and makes prudent and wise recommendations for structural and institutional macroeconomic, monetary policy and political change.

The conclusion, its not too late to address the systemic and systematic risks to central banking, regulation and supervision, financial institutions and capital markets, and the real economy and labor markets.

However, considering the real economic realities of the current political, party and policy environment, along with Wall Street’s control over monetary (Federal Reserve), fiscal (Treasury) and regulatory (Comptroller/SEC/FDIC/etc.) policy in Washington, that a political solution could actually be accomplished. Dr. Rasmus is correct in his recommendations and his analysis.

We are all at the end of our rope, and thank you Dr. Jack Rasmus for bringing another critical analysis of the current and future state of global central banking, and for proposing bold policy recommendations to avert another severe financial crisis, great recession and depression.

 

REVIEW

Rapid technological, demographic, economic, cultural, sociological and political change has changed the way central banks analyse, manage and respond to business cycle peaks, troughs (recessions), financial crisis, and macro-prudential bank supervision; and central bank policy responses have failed consistently over time, due to limitations of their data, models, ideology, epistemology, bureaucracy, and politics.

But one modern response to these limitations has been consistent over time, inject or try to inject massive amounts (trillions of U.S. Dollars, Yen, Euros, Pounds, Yuan, Peso, Rubble, etc.) of liquidity (credit) to back-stop and set a support under asset prices. Since these asset price bubbles and asset price collapse (financial/currency crisis) have become more frequent since 1995 (Peso Crisis, Thai Baht, Russian Default, Y2K/911, Housing Bubble, Financial Crisis, etc.), global central bankers do not have the intellect, culture, knowledge, data, models, tools, resources, balance sheet, etc. to deal with crisis going forward.

Dr. Rasmus recommends limiting the independence (ad hoc decision making) of central banks by instituting a (rules based) Constitutional Amendment defining new functions for the central bank, new monetary targets and tools to modernise and drive global central banks into the 21st century.

 

Problems and Contradictions of Central Banking

In response to these economic and financial disruptions, central banks have responded consistently by injecting massive amounts of liquidity into the system with no limitations.

Globalisation, technologicalisation and deregulation/integration have accelerated capital flows and accumulation, and concentration to targeted and non-targeted markets across the world. This process continues at a rapid pace, and depending on the recipient, can be economically, financially and politically (institutionally) destabilising, destructive and deconstructive. It is not a matter if this will happen, but when, again! Which country, industry, company, and demographic will be affected, disrupted, destroyed and wrecked.

In response to these economic and financial disruptions, central banks have responded consistently by injecting massive amounts of liquidity into the system, with no limitations due to their misunderstanding of how the economic and financial system really works. Through the use of unorthodox monetary policy tools and targets, in the face of total deregulation and free flow of capital (shadow banking and derivatives trading), central banks are at this point where they cannot control or manage the system. We are in unchartered territory.

Only to bail it out, the private banking system – other strategic affiliated institutions, corporations, businesses and brokerages – again and again, by printing massive amounts of fiat currency (seigniorage), to buy (defective/defaulted) securities product (derivatives), accumulate more sovereign-corporate-personal debt, with even more crowding out effects, has had no real eventual long-term impacts on real economic growth, wages, and productivity; and social welfare or standards of living.  Only asset prices bubbles and a massive redistribution and concentration of wealth.

It is estimated, between the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, Bank of England, and European Central Bank, $15 trillion direct liquidity injections, loans, guarantees, tax reductions, direct subsidies, etc. have been used. If you add in China and Japan, the total gets to as high as $25 trillion, and if you add in other emerging country (Asian, Latin America, and Middle-East) central banks, the total gets as high $40 trillion.

This is only the present value (cost basis), if you project the total cost (interest and principal payments) out over a 30 to 40 year period, the estimate total cost is as high as $80 to $100 trillion. Thereby, making the global financial and economic system eventually insolvent and bankrupt, and central banking ineffective and perpetually in a liquidity trap, as the velocity of money has collapsed. There is no real money going into real long-term (capital budgets) assets, only short-term  financial assets.

This is the contradiction of Central Banking: liquidity-debt-insolvency nexus, the moral (immoral) hazard of perpetual bail-outs, growing concentration of wealth at the extremes, growing perception that Negative/Zero Interest Rate Policy (N/ZIRP) can fix under-investment in capital (human/physical) and deflationary (disinflationary) trends, and that bank regulation-supervision is bad for the economy, financial services (institutions) industry, and for institutional and retail investors (savers) in the long run.

 

A Brief History of Central Banking

A Brief History of Central Banking, walks us through the origins of central banking, from the Bank of England (1694) as the lender of last resort for private banks, and its monopoly position in issuing government bank notes and currency (1844/1870s), and bailing out the banking system due to crashes and development of new types of currencies (paper, gold, notes, etc.).

An uncontrolled growth in the money supply in the U.S. led to financial speculation in gold and bonds (1830), and depression (1837-43). No central bank was established, not even after banking crashes (1870/1890s/1907-08), but only by 1914 as the U.S. entered WWI, and needed to decouple its currency from gold, raise tax revenues, and be able to monetise its sovereign debt through the use of a fractional reserve banking system, did the government then decide that they needed a central bank.

The role of the central banks were to maintain monopoly control over the production of money, act as a lender of last resort and fund raising agents, provide a clearing-payment services system between banks, and supervise bank behavior.

The goal, was price stability, supply of money growth targets, full employment, interest rate and currency exchange rate determination. They were to do this though the use of tools (rules): reserve requirements, discount rates, and Open Market Operations (OMO); and now, Quantitative Easing (QE)/Tightening (QT) and special auctions and re-purchase agreements.

The U.S. Federal Reserve Bank(s) was also given this monopoly position, along with tools and independence. This has led to some toxic legacies (credibility issues).

 

The U.S. Federal Reserve Bank: Origins and Toxic Legacies

The U.S. Federal Reserve Bank system was originated from a consortium of private banks looking to centralise the Federal Reserve System: JP Morgan, Kuhn, Loeb, Chase, Bankers Trust, First National, etc.  Particularly after financial instability (illiquidity/capital/reserves), bank crashes (lack of supervision) –  1890s/1907, and the rise of the U.S. as a global economic power.

Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act on December 13th 1913: twelve district banks and national board located in Washington D.C. The real power resided in the member banks that owned their respective districts. They could issue their own currency and notes, exchange for gold and foreign currency, invest in agricultural and industrial loans, and received dividends from earnings.

After the Great Depression and bank reform acts (1933/1935), the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Open Market Committee became the two powerful institutions within the Federal Reserve System.

The continual mismanagement, ideological mistakes, and lack of understanding of how the real world works, was witnessed again under Bernanke, now Yellen, and who knows who is next.

However, the Fed experienced two decades of failure (1913-1933) due to lack of supervision, stock market and loan speculation, asset price bubbles/crashes, depressions, bank closures and bailouts, excessive extension of liquidity (margin), protection of government finance and wealthy investors, hyperinflation (deflation/disinflation), false targets (gold peg/production/employment), inaction and incompetence (discount rate/open market operations), institutional narcissism and egotism, power and elitism, bureaucratic control, etc.

Bank acts were put in place by Roosevelt, and other regulation and operations were put in place through the 1970s and 1980s: Glass-Stegall, 1935 Bank Act, Reg U, tax reform, policy, Treasury-Fed Accord, Operation Twist, Bretton Woods, Humphrey-Hawkins/Resolution 133, fighting hyperinflation-stagflation-recessions, Reg D, Plaza Accords, state and shadow bank regulatory efforts, international banking (currency/note) issues, liquidity escalations, and eventually the Greenspan typhon.

From 1913 to 1933, the two decades of failure after the Federal Reserve was created; it continued into the 1940s-1950s, 1960s-1970s, 1980s-1990s, 1990s-2000s, it continued and continues to this day, and looks like it will continue into the future.

 

Greenspan’s Bank: The Typhon Monster Released

Greenspan, influenced by Ian Rand – liberal-post-modern philosophy – set in motion an un-orthodoxy in Federal Reserve, Monetary Policy, and Macro/Political Economic rationalisation, a stark contrast to the Volker era. Greenspan believed in markets, and lase fair-free hand economic ideology (deregulation); and did not believe in limits to the Market and Technology-Labor Productivity, limits to the Federal Reserve’s power to dictate markets and the economy, and limits – in the end – to the ability to inject massive amounts of liquidity into the financial system to drive (support) asset price bubbles. This belief, or lack of, lead to multiple crisis and bailouts of the system.

The continual mismanagement, ideological mistakes, and lack of understanding of how the real world works, was witnessed again under Bernanke, now Yellen, and who knows who is next (Powell)?

 

Bernanke’s Bank: Greenspan’s Put on Steroids

Bernanke was minted from the same Greenspan mold, a true believer that excessive liquidity injections cold solve massive capital market and economic failures with little cost. It was the financial crisis and the coordinated efforts between the Federal Reserve and the Treasury (and other hidden interests), that was the test case in the Federal Reserve ability to manage severe man-made financial-economic crisis. The result, a new nationalisation-corporatist-financial oligopoly industrial model, leveraged through Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP)/Negative Real Interest Rate Policy (NRIRP), Quantitative Easing (QE), and Credit Enhancements/Liquidity Injections.

However, the outcomes from these efforts were disastrous:

1. Political Populism (Political-Economic Institutional Deconstruction/Destruction)

2. Massive Capital-Labor Substitution (Productivity Lag)

3. Massive Concentrations of Wealth (Inter-Generational Wealth Transfer)

4. Flat-Declining Real Wages (Social Welfare/Standards of Living/Poverty)

5. Unfunded Pension Liabilities (Crisis)

6. Recession(s) Twice as Deep/Twice as Long (Structural)

7. Rising Un-Funded Pension Liabilities

8. Collapse in Labor Participation Rates (High Under-Employment)

9. Collapse in Velocity of Money (Currency Turnover)

10. Rise of Shadow (Unregulated) Banking System (Disintermediation)

11. Massive Use-Trading of Un-Collateralised (Over-The-Counter/OTC) Derivative Trading

12. Excessive Use of Financial Engineering to Support Asset Prices

13. Global Economic-Political Instability (Global Cyber-Cold War)

14. Global Hyper-Inflation/Banking Crisis/Credit Defaults (Sovereign)

15. Massive Over-Leveraging of Government, Corporate and Personal Balance Sheets

16. Over Accommodative Monetary/Fiscal Policy (Negative Nominal/Real Interest Rates/Change Accounting Rules/Low Effective Tax Rates)

17. Global Tax Evasion (Avoidance)

18. Ballooning of the Federal Reserve Balance Sheet (Bonds/Reserves)

19. Ballooning of the Federal Budget Deficit and Debt ($500-800 Billion Per Year/+$20 Trillion)

20. Continuous Belief in Supply Side Economics (Trickle Down Theory/Deregulation)

21. Continuous Belief in Monetary System/Real Economy Aggregates (Inflation/Interest)

22. Continuous Bail-Outs of Financial/Economic System (Insolvency/Bankruptcy)

23. Etc. Etc. Etc.

All of these beliefs, techniques and tools have been used by other Global Central Governments and Banks (BOJ/ECB/BOE/PBOC), with similar, disastrous, and disappointing outcomes. A focus is on saving the financial institutional system in the short-run, using extreme and un-orthodox monetary policies (tools), with a lack of concern or understanding of long-run economic, social, cultural, and political consequences and outcomes.

A perfect example, are policy responses of the Bank of Japan (BOJ).

 

The Bank of Japan (BOJ): Harbinger of Things That Came

Over the last 17 years (1990 – 2017) the BOJ has implemented an aggressive form of unorthodox monetary policy (Negative – Nominal/Real – Interest Rate Policy/Quantitative Easing): printing massive amounts of money, buying massive amounts of sovereign-corporate (infrastructure) bonds, driving bonds yields negative, and driving domestic investors/savers and financial institutions literally crazy.

With no real effect on the Real Business Cycle (RBC), resulting in perpetual recessions and disinflation/deflation. These unorthodox monetary policies (mistakes/failures) have had the effect of causing asset price bubbles/busts (banking crisis), negative effects on standards of living, and negative effects on financial (dis)intermediation and fiscal policy (mistakes).

The BOJ has responded to these failures by introducing more accommodative (QE) policies, along with over accommodative fiscal policies (sovereign debt levels at historical levels) with no real positive effects. Fiscal policy mistakes (tax increases in a recession), have only exacerbated economic outcomes.

Japan will be the ultimate experiment in monetary-fiscal policy mistakes, as they will have to resort to even more extreme measures to try to get themselves out of their existential structural crisis. The ultimate fiscal-monetary response could be, with unintended political-economic-cultural consequences, associated with a massive and coordinated debt forgiveness, by both fiscal/monetary authorities.

At some point they will not have the tax revenues to service the sovereign debt payments, and will theoretically fall into default, and will ask for forgiveness, not from bond holders, but from the BOJ, that owns the majority of the debt.

Monkey see, monkey do. The BOJ has set the (bad) model for other central banks to follow, not only the U.S., but also the European Central Bank (ECB).

 

The European Central Bank (ECB) under German Hegemony

Years after the financial crisis, the ECB finally started the process of cleaning up its banking system, and started an aggressive process of Quantitative Easing (QE), introduction of other unorthodox policies (Refinance Options/Covered Bond Purchase/Securities Markets, etc.), and drove nominal interest rates negative as far out as 10 year maturities; negative; with a limited effect of driving down the value of the Euro to stimulate exports, economic growth, and hit inflation and unemployment targets.

The actual ECB structure (dominated by Germany – Bundesbank) was a major impediment to its ability to respond to the crisis: austerity, inability to devalue the Euro, fear of hyper-inflationary trends, and misspecification of monetary policy targets: inflation, productivity, employment, wages, and exchange rates.

Poor performance (contagion), bank crisis (runs on banks), social unrest (populism), massive debt issuance, and deflation (liquidity trap/collapse of money velocity) was the costly (stagnation) result of these policy mistakes. This – along with their lack and hesitant response to bank runs in Spain-Greece-other EU countries – has had a negative impact on the central bank’s independence and credibility, in regards to their ability to respond to future financial and economic crisis.

When the ECB was dealing with the aftermath of the financial crisis, the Bank of England (BOE) across the pond, was trying to immunise itself from the global crisis and its aftermath, only to vote itself into another existential crisis of national identity (BREXIT from the European Union), with long-term economic consequences, testing the limitation of the BOE.

 

The Bank of England’s (BOE) Last Hurrah: From QE to BREXIT

The Bank of England (BOE) was founded in 1694, the first central bank, and in 1844 under the Bank Charter Act, was given independent monopoly control over bank notes and currency, money supply, bank supervision, lending of last resort, and fiscal government bond-placement agency. By the 1990s, monetarism took hold and the main target was inflation (price stability), and the Monetary Policy Committee was established to conduct open market operations, set interest rates, and reserve requirements.

Globalisation, and having London as the center of money center global trading – currency, credit and interest rate derivatives and floating rate Euro notes and bonds – created excessive liquidity/credit and asset price bubbles, particularly in the U.S. commercial property markets from 2004-2007, eventually led and met with an asset price (housing/mortgage/RMBS/CMBS/equity) bubble and banking collapse (insolvency/QE, nationalisation, etc.), similar to the other industrialised economies.

The total cost of these QE (negative real and nominal interest rates) programs, in addition to other credit facility programs, is well over a trillion pounds, with no real ability to achieve their inflation, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or employment/labor participation targets. The global push toward deregulation (giving Wall Street back its ability to lever up and take down the system, again) and BREXIT, is certainly making the BOE’s job of conducting monetary policy problematic, leading to policy ineffectiveness (failure), lack of credibility and jeopardising its independence.

These events, have contributed to the significant devaluation of the pound; yes, making U.K. exports cheaper, stimulating export growth as a contribution to GDP; but has caused political-populous parliamentary uncertainty and economic stagnation (high deficits/debt levels); and import price inflation, pushing down consumer purchasing power, standards of living and social welfare in the short and long run.

The big worry, not only for the BOE, but also for the Fed, ECB, BOJ, etc., is the coordinated unwinding of the bank balance sheets (sovereign and MBS bond portfolios), one mistake, could shift and invert global yield curves, pop asset price bubbles in stocks, bonds and real estate, and send us all into a global recession-depression.

Similar policy responses to the global economic-banking crisis, is also being witnessed in Asia. Yes, we already talked about the BOJ being the first mover in applications of unorthodox monetary and fiscal policy, with no real outcomes on wages, growth or inflation, other than fiscal debt levels and continued stagnation, the other, is the People’s Bank of China (PBOC).

The real difference between the PBOC and the rest of the global central banks, is total lack of transparency (opaque) into the balance sheets of the government, financial institutions, government (State-Owned Enterprises – SOEs) owned corporations, public and private Multinational Corporations (MNC), and state and local finance.

 

The People’s Bank of China (PBOC) Chases Its Shadows

The modern era of the PBOC started in the early 1980s – as a fiscal agent (under Ministry of Finance), public-private bank, clearing foreign currency exchange transactions, etc. in coordination with the China Construction Bank, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, and Agricultural Bank of China.

Opening up the economy to massive (speculative) extension of credit and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), under a neo-liberal model, resulted in speculative asset price (real estate, equity and debt) bubbles and busts (defaults) in the 1980s and 1990s, resulting in government intervention and deflation.

The Asian Contagion of the late 1990s required massive bank and corporate bailouts (recapitalisations). The 2000s, have seen a modernisation of the PBOC as a central banking institution through banking reforms, conversion of SOEs to private-public firms (privatisation toward a more Japanese Keiretsu system), push for more export oriented policies (higher-value commodities-services), and large government sponsored infrastructure projects (commercial-residential-dams-roads-power plants, etc.),

Prior to the Financial Crisis (FC), the PBOC was moving to a modern rules-tools oriented application of monetary policy: interest rate and price targeting, constant growth in the money supply, and use of open market operations. Low borrowing costs spurred massive amounts of lending and borrowing (money supply growth) by both fiscal institutions, government and state-private owned enterprises, leading to asset price bubbles.

China is using more and more debt to fix bad debt problems, and the simulative multiplier-accelerator effect on the economy is deteriorating quickly.

Which also lead to over-capacity, miss-allocation of resources, inflation, environmental degradation, political-economic corruption, currency manipulation (peg), etc. Since the China economy was still at this time decoupled from the Western global financial system, it was able to avoid most of the damage caused before the Financial Crisis.

But after the Financial Crisis, the PBOC had to accelerate the move toward liberal monetary finance, driving interest rates extremely low (real interest rates negative) to keep government and corporate (personal) borrowing costs low, to stimulate the economy/consumption/investment, to keep it from falling into a severe recession (depression/deflation), and had to deal with Non-Performing bank Loan (NPL) portfolios to avert a banking crisis. Rapid growth helped to mask these problems, but these were only land mines, waiting to be found and dealt with at a future date.

Banks and asset management companies had to be bailed out, dissolved, liquidated, etc. Trillions and trillions of monetary liquidity and fiscal stimulus had to be injected to the economy, targeted toward housing, infrastructure and manufacturing, causing asset prices again to inflate. By 2014, only to deflate again by 2016. These injections of fiscal and monetary stimulus exacerbated asset price volatility (real estate/equities/bonds).

The next financial crisis in China will come from the excessive extension of credit from both fiscal and monetary authorities, and will come from government and corporate bond market defaults, as the system is severely  over leveraged. China is using more and more debt to fix bad debt problems, and the simulative multiplier-accelerator effect on the economy is deteriorating (decelerating) quickly.

Global central banks have been coordinating their monetary policy efforts over the past 10 years, and the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank has become the de facto Central Bank of Central Banks (CBCB). Based on new disclosures, we have found out that the U.S. Federal Reserve conducted global QE by buying other foreign sovereign debt during the financial crisis, and provided credit-liquidity facilities to global banks.

 

Yellen’s Bank: From Taper Tantrums to Trump Trade

There was Paul Volker, then there was Alan Greenspan, then Ben Bernanke, now Janet Yellen, and who knows who is next (Jerome Powell). All of these Fed presidents dealt with extraordinary conditions (some self-inflicted), wars, financial crisis, recessions, asset price bubbles/bursts, etc.

It was not till Alan Greenspan, that the Federal Reserve decided excessive accommodation and liquidity was the solution to all crisis, and asset price bubbles were not a concern if they were real, and not a monetary illusion. However, he now admits that he was wrong in the way he understood how the world really works, which means he made policy errors and mistakes.

Bernanke was a protégé of Greenspan, and responded to the Financial Crisis with the largest monetary response (QE Infinity) in modern monetary history combined; and Yellen, continued his legacy of over accommodation, to escort us into one of the biggest debt-asset price bubbles in modern Fed history.

And if history is any indicator of the future, once the Fed(s) decide to conduct a coordinated unwind of their balance sheets, the popping of asset price bubbles will be like balloons at New Year’s Eve party in Time’s Square, only everyone will walk away from the party with the worst hangover of their life, and no one will be able to sober up fast enough to drive to the next party.

In the end, the Fed accumulated over $4.5 trillion in bank reserves/balance sheet (bonds), made up mostly of mortgage backed securities and U.S. government Treasury notes and bonds, the average size of the balance sheet prior to the financial crisis was $500 to $800 billion. This is the largest subsidisation, and theoretically (and really) the largest nationalisation (Fed implemented) process, of the financial system and the economy in modern post-WWI history.

This could also be considered Fascist Finance (FF), as it involves the largest global money center banks, multinational corporations, and governments in the world –  now a Global Corporatist System – operating under unorthodox monetary policy, outside pluralistic-democratic institutional oversight.  As we can now see, again, the systematic dismantling, deconstruction and destruction of financial institutional governmental regulatory oversight, is in place.

Since these were mainly reserves creation, and an addition to the monetary base, and not really the money supply, the policy effects (QE/(Zero-Negative Real Interest Rate policy) have been mute.

The Fed has not been able to hit its inflation or GDP targets for the past 10 years (well below potential), there is secular and cyclical productivity declines, extremely low labor participation rates (high under employment rates), real wages are stagnant and still declining, and we are in a disinflationary/deflationary secular trend.

The cause is a collapse in the velocity of money, driven by alternative forms of money creation and flows across the globe (cryptic-digital currencies-shadow banking, etc.); the lack of fiscal labor market policy to lower under-employment and raise labor market participation rates; and other social, cultural, political and economic disruptions. Making it now impossible to conduct monetary policy.

The real risk going forward will be from a series of financial deregulation, coming from the Trump Administration and the Republican controlled House and Senate; along with a coordinated effort to unwind (Quantitative Tightening – QT) the Feds (and other global central banks) balance sheet, and a race toward interest rate normalisation, sucking liquidity out of the system, only to lead to a stock, bond and real estate bubble burst.

With the Fiscal Debt totaling over $20 trillion, the Feds Balance Sheet totaling $4.5 trillion, the potential for continued -perpetual war (defense spending) and entitlement expenditures, and political and policy uncertainty (next Federal Reserve President) there is little room for monetary and fiscal solutions to fight the next financial and economic crisis. Leading to the conclusion of continued stagnation, crisis, recession, wars and depression.

It is now obvious why Central Banks fail.

 

Why Central Banks Fail

After reading Dr. Jack Rasmus book, Central Bankers at the End of Their Rope? and if you read his book, Systematic Fragility in the Global Economy,  along with other books and interviews surrounding this literature, it has been clear, and it is now crystal clear, why central banks fail, they:

  • Are a creature of the global capitalist system;
  • Support, promote and protect financial institutions and companies;
  • Use myopic (static) intellectual and epistemological frames (models) to analyse economic data, markets, and institutions to develop and implement monetary policy;
  • Are influenced by political (executive/legislative) parties and lobby when making and communicating policy;
  • Are expected to support (moral hazard) and coordinate national fiscal policies (debt) and priorities (compromising their independence and credibility);
  • And be the lender, portfolio manager, and market maker of last resort to mitigate capital market (economic) failures;

These failures emanate from the fact that they are given (have been given over) the monopoly power and authority (independence) to control the money supply, clearing system, exchange rates, interest rates, supervision, etc. However, we are finding out, that they are not as in control as we think, and are not looking out for our best interest.

The solution to the existential crisis in global central banking is not a technological solution, but a democratic-pluralistic political solution. Based on moral philosophy and ethical outcomes.

There is a mythology surrounding the Fed, and illusion of omnipotence, and control, this is evident when measured by its balance sheet, lack of understanding how the world really works, and inability to hit monetary and real economic targets: inflation, labor participation rates, real wage growth, and higher broad based social welfare and standards of living.

We are finding that our Keynesian (Keynes) and Monetarist (Fisher/Friedman) economic ideologies are not correct, and are not working, deregulation and printing of massive amounts of money to bail out and subsidise inefficient and corrupt financial institutions (lobby), after every man-made and self-inflicted crisis, is not working, and we are at the end of our rope.

We now, cannot keep doing this, we are out of money. However, with Crypto-currencies, and other unproven systems of monetary accounting, could set the stage for monetary collapse, if this experiment turns out wrong.

The solution to the existential crisis in global central banking is not a technological solution, but a democratic-pluralistic political solution. Based on moral philosophy and ethical outcomes.

 

Revolutionising Central Banking in the Public Interest: Embedding Change Via Constitutional Amendment

What is needed is a revolution in central bank thinking. There are many excuses for monetary (central bank) failures:

  • Too much discretion (money supply growth/credit expansion/asset price bubbles), and not enough adherence to monetary policy rules (money growth targets);
  • Conflicting fiscal (expenditures/spending) vs. monetary (inflation/interest rate) policy;
  • Asymmetric information (capital) flows (bottleneck) through banking system (adverse selection/moral hazard/principal agent problem);
  • Wrong monetary targets (inflation); dual mandates (production/employment/inflation/wage trade-off);
  • Global savings glut (uncontrollable off shore capital inflow);
  • Need for new monetary tools (open market operations/QE/QT/discount rates/reserve requirements, etc.);
  • Executive/legislative intrusion in monetary policy functioning;
  • Etc.

However, the real reason why central banks fail are:

  • Mismanagement of money supply (credit) growth and allowing banks, and other near- bank institutions, to access Federal Reserve credit/liquidity facilities;
  • Fragmented, failed and non-existent systemic and macro-micro prudential systemic bank supervision (Dodd-Frank);
  • Inability to achieve (real-nominal wage) inflation (labor participation) rates;
  • Failure to address, mitigate and/or control run-away asset (real estate/equity/bond/commodity) price inflation (bubbles/bust);
  • Deterioration, decomposition, and failure in the elasticity of (zero-negative) interest rates (liquidity trap/technology) to stimulate real economic growth (employment/wages);
  • Re-direction of investment capital away from higher yielding real (long-term) capital investments to lower yielding-speculative monetary (short-term) financial investments (derivatives/floating-rate notes);
  • Ineffectiveness of traditional monetary policy tools (federal funds rate/discount window/reserve requirements), and reliance on non-traditional un-orthodox (QE/credit-liquidity facilities) monetary policy tools with unintended negative consequences (deflation/asset price bubbles);
  • Myopic political-economic monetary policy ideologies and errors in epistemological thinking (Taylor Rules/Philips Curve/Zero-Negative Interest Rate Policy/unlimited balance sheet expansion).
  • Etc.

What is needed is a revolution in central bank thinking.

 

CONCLUSIONS

A revolution is needed, in mainstream ideological thought, in regards to Global Central Banking. A revolution in accepted institutional norms and beliefs of how central banking actually works. There needs to be a dialectical shift from the established and accepted thesis of central banking authority. If there is not, there will be a revolution against central banks, and a battle will occur to wrestle authority, control and independence from central banks.  And this battle will no doubt be destructive and deconstructive, leading to economic and financial crisis, and eventually lead to some anti-thesis (executive or legislative branch control) over the central bank(s) for the next 30 to 60 years.

Currently, the Federal Reserve is:

  • Controlled by private sector banker interests,
  • Control of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Open Market Operations),
  • Private sector banker selected leadership of Federal Open Market Committee,
  • Private sector bank access to insider information on monetary policy,
  • Iron-Triangles between Fed staff and private banking sector and lobby,
  • Circularity between Fed private sector banks,
  • Influence of private sector bank lobby in Fed Chair selection,
  • Record campaign finance contributions to congressional committee members,
  • Revolving door between the Fed, bank supervisors, Treasury, and banks,
  • Etc.

Regulatory and legislative proposals have been brought, only to be blocked and abandoned, due to pressure from Wall Street lobby. And those policies that have been enacted (Dodd-Frank), the bank lobby has systematically reversed and repealed oversight over the years, or implemented bank friendly legislation. This legislation, and lack of supervisory regulatory oversight, has been passed through (and ignored by) executive and congressional initiatives, and the public administrative bureaucracy.

The solution, is the democratisation of the central bank, bringing it into pluralistic (public) oversight, with a focus on real, not financial, economic outcomes.

 

Proposed Constitutional Amendment

The solution, a proposed constitutional amendment to require the democratic election of the national Fed governors by U.S. citizens, serving six years; and the Treasury secretary shall decide monetary policy in the public interest; and be proactive in achieving stability for labor, households, businesses, local governments, and financial institutions and industry, etc.

Dr. Rasmus, recommends a constitutional amendment enabling legislation through five sections, and 20 articles:

SECTION #1: Democratic Restructuring

  • Article #1: Replace 12 Fed districts with four, presidents elected at large.
  • Article #2: FOMC replaced by National Fed Council (NFC), members limited to six-year terms, and 10 year limit on returning to private banking sector.
  • Article #3: Fed districts to not be corporation, and issue stock, pay dividends, retain no profits. Taxes to be levied on Fed transactions to pay for operating costs.
  • Article #4: No additions to Fed districts by legislative or executive orders, or appointments.

SECTION #2: Decision Making Authority

  • Article #5: NFC and Treasury Secretary to determine monetary policy (tools).
  • Article #6: QE to be used to invest in real assets.
  • Article #7: NFC purchase of private sector stocks and bonds, and derivatives, prohibited.
  • Article #8: No Fed bank supervision, a new consolidated banking institution created.

SECTION III: Banking Supervision

  • Article #9: Same as Article #8.
  • Article #10: Separate supervisory departments by banking and financial services industry segments.
  • Article #11: Separate legislation by depository from non-depository institutions.
  • Article #12: Supervision includes all markets and companies in derivative industry.
  • Article #13: Conduct regular stress tests on banks and non-banks.

SECTION IV: Mandates and Targets

  • Article #14: Replace current Fed targets with those targeting real wage growth.
  • Article #15: Expand authority of NFC to lend directly to businesses and households.

SECTION V: Expand Lender of Last Resort Authority

  • Article #16: Expanded to include non-banks businesses, local-state governments, etc.
  • Article #17: Non-bailout of Non-U.S. domiciled banks and financial institutions.
  • Article #18: Create a Public Investment Bank (PIB) as lender of last resort to provide liquidity to households and non-banks.
  • Article #19:  Create a National Public Bank (NPB) for direct lending to households and non-banks.
  • Article #20: Bain-ins thresholds and limits protect depository diluted from bail-outs.

 

FINAL COMMENTS

In the post-World War II (WWII) era the economy and financial markets and institutions have gone through nine cycles.  Over time the amplitude and volatility of these cycles have narrowed as our cultural, social, political and economic institutions developed.  However, the most recent business, financial institution and credit cycle experienced a significant drop – and volatility – in aggregate demand and asset prices, not seen since 1949, a point in history when our central banking and financial institutions were developing.

The long-term goal of effective formulation and administration of public, monetary and fiscal policies is efficient allocation of capital and resources, higher risk-adjusted returns, social and economic stability, and high and rising standards of living and social welfare.

The reality is we have witnessed the systematic deconstruction of pluralistic, democratic and capitalistic institutions – through the political process – by private interest in society and economy, creating perverse redistribution of wealth and resources, to the point of massive social and cultural, and economic and capital market failures.

It is believed by most neo-post Keynesian economists, that the current economic, institutional, and capital market failures could have been avoided through centrist political, monetary and fiscal policies, and that the recent financial crisis could have been averted through the separation of investment and commercial banking activities, and enforcement of public and private property rights through effective enforcement.

The long-term goal of effective formulation and administration of public, monetary and fiscal policies is efficient allocation of capital and resources, higher risk-adjusted returns, social and economic stability, and high and rising standards of living and social welfare.

Dr. Jack Rasmus’s book, Central Bankers at the End of Their Rope?: Monetary Policy and the Coming Depression, enables us to understand historical and recent economic and capital market crisis, and how to recognise and understand the development, administration and deconstruction of financial institutions and markets.

Institutions were built on pluralistic political and capitalistic economic ideologies, and when these ideologies are confronted, come under attack by private interests, policy outcomes are distorted or destroyed.

The process of pluralistic, democratic and capitalistic institutional construction and development has taken 80 years; however, it took 30 years, and particularly the last ten years, to deconstruct these institutions to the point of systematic failure.

The process associated with institutional destruction, deconstruction and distortion, manifests in the extreme redistribution of political power, social benefits and economic wealth, and can reach the point where redistributions become so extreme, they cause systematic social, economic and market failure.

These failures are reflected in increased volatility in social and economic indicators, capital market pricing and investment risk, and resulting reductions in risk-adjusted returns, inefficient allocation investment capital and resources, and falling employment and real income growth rates, standards of living and overall social welfare.

“Over the past 95 years, society and the economy have witnessed great prosperity, wars, depressions, recessions and revolutions.  We have just witnessed a revolution in economic ideological thought – from Keynesianism to Monetarism – and in its wake of institutional destruction and market failure… what synthesis will form and how will we as a society be remembered.” Dr. Lawrence A. Souza (2014).

 

About the Author

Dr. Lawrence A. Souza, DBA/CCIM/RICS/CRE is an Adjunct Professor in Finance at St. Mary’s College, School of Economics and Business Administration (SEBA). He has over 28 years of experience in the commercial real estate investment advisory industry, providing economic and investment consulting services to individual and institutional real estate investors. Prior to St. Mary’s College of California, Pillar6 Advisors, LLC, Johnson Souza Group, Inc., and New York Life Insurance Company/NYLIFE Securities LLC, Dr. Souza worked for Charles Schwab Investment Management (CSIM) as Managing Director – Index Services; Chief Economist – Managing Director with Global Real Analytics (GRA); and Investment Advisor for Quantum Financial Network (QFN).

 

References

1. Abhijit Banerjee-Esther Duflo, Poor Economics.
2. Andrew Napolitano, A Nation of Sheep.
3. Andrew Ross Sorkin, Too Big To Fail.
4. Anthony Downs, Real Estate and the Financial Crisis.
5. Arthur Miller, Death of a Salesman, The Crucible, A View from the Bridge, Timebends, and A Life.
6. Barry Eichengreen, Exorbitant Privilege: The Rise and Fall of the Dollar and the Future of the International Monetary System.
7. Carmen Reinhart-Ken Rogoff, This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly.
8. Charles Kindleberger, Manias, Panics and Crashes: The History of Financial Crises.
9. Clyde Prestowitz, The Betrayal of American Prosperity.
10. Dambisa Moyo, How the West was Lost: Fifty Years of Economic Folly – and the Stark Choices Ahead.
11. Dambisa Moyo, How the West Was Lost: Fifty Years of Economic Folly, and the Stark Choices Ahead.
12. Damon Vickers, The Day After the Dollar Crashes.
13. Daniel Yergin, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power.
14. David Brooks, Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class And How They Got There.
15. David Harvey, The Enigma of Capital and the Crisis of Capitalism.
16. David Harvey, The New Imperialism.
17. David Ricardo, The Principals of Political Economy and Taxation.
18. David Skeel, The New Financial Deal: Understanding the Dodd-Frank Act and its Unintended Consequences.
19. Diane Coyle, The Economics of Enough: How to Run an Economy as if the Future Matters.
20. Edmund Phelps, Structural Slumps and Rewarding Work.
21. Eric Weiner, The Shadow Market: How Wealthy Nations/Investors Secretly Dominate the World.
22. Frank Portnoy, FIASCO: Blood in the Water on Wall Street.
23. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power.
24. Garber Mate: Scattered Minds: A New Look at Origins and Healing of ADD.
25. Gary Stern, Too Big To Fail: Hazards of Bank Bailouts.
26. George Cooper, The Origins of Financial Crisis: Central Banks, Credit Bubbles.
27. Glenn Hubbard, Seeds of Destruction: Why the Path to Economic Ruin Rugs Through Washington, and How to Reclaim American Prosperity.
28. Gretchen Morgenson, Reckless Endangerment.
29. Harry Dent, The Great Depression Ahead.
30. Jerome Corsi, America for Sale.
31. John Bogle, The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism.
32. John Cassidy, How Markets Fail: The Logic of Economic Calamities.
33. John Mauldin, Endgame: End of the Super Debt Cycle.
34. Joseph E. Stiglitz, Freefall: America, Free Markets and the Sinking of the World Economy.
35. Judge Richard Posner, A Failure of Capitalism.
36. Justin Fox, The Myth of the Rational Market: A History of Risk, Reward and Delusion on Wall Street.
37. Kim Phillips-Fein, Invisible Hands.
38. Liaquat Ahamed, Lords of Finance.
39. Manfred Max-Neef, From the Outside Looking In: Experiences in Barefoot Economics.
40. Mark Zandi, Financial Shock: A 360° Look at the Subprime Mortgage Implosion, and How to Avoid the Next Financial Crisis.
41. Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.
42. Michael Lewis, The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine.
43. Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine.
44. Nicole Gelinas, After the Fall: Saving Capitalism from Wall Street and Washington.
45. Noam Chomsky, Failed States, Necessary Illusions, and Manufacturing Consent.
46. Pat Choate, Saving Capitalism: Keeping America Strong.
47. Paul Kennedy, Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.
48. Paul Krugman, The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008.
49. Paul Muolo, Chain of Blame: How Wall Street Caused the Mortgage and Credit Crisis.
50. Paul Sperry, The Great American Bank Robbery: The Unauthorized Report About What Really Caused the Great Recession.
51. Peter Ingersoll, Real Estate Tsunami Survivors Guide.
52. Raghuram Rajan, Fault Lines: Hidden Fractures Still Threaten the World Economy.
53. Randall Lane, The Zeros: My Misadventure in the Decade Wall Street Went Insane.
54. Robert Barbera, The Cost of Capitalism: Understanding Market Mayhem and Stabilizing our Economic Future.
55. Robert Reich, Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future.  Robert Scheer, The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street and Mugged Main Street.
56. Robert Shiller, Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy and Why It Matters for Global Capitalism; and The Subprime Solution: How Today’s Global Financial Crisis Happened, and What to Do about It.
57. Roger Lowenstein, The End of Wall Street.
58. Roman Frydman, Beyond Mechanical Markets: Asset Price Swings, Risk and the Role of the State.
59. Satyajit Das, Extreme Money: Masters of the Universe and Cult of Risk.
60. Simon Johnson, 13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and Next Financial Meltdown.
61. Stephen Breyer, Making Our Democracy Work.
62. Steve Fraser, Wall Street: Americas Dream Palace.
63. Susan Casey, The Devil’s Teeth: Great White Obsession/Survival.
64. Suzanne McGee, Chasing Goldman Sachs: How they Melted.
65. Thomas Sowell, The Housing Boom and Bust.
66. Timothy Carney, Obamanomics.
67. V.S. Soloviev, Politics, Law and Morality; Michel Foucault, Power/Knowledge.
68. William Bonner, The Empire of Debt: The Rise and Fall of an Epic Financial Bubble.
69. William Holstein, The Next American Economy: Blue Print for a Real Recovery.

 

 

Bitcoin, Cryptos and Financial Asset Bubbles

BRUSSELS, BELGIUM - MARCH 9, 2017 : Golden Bitcoins.

By Jack Rasmus

At less than $1000 per coin in January, Bitcoin prices surged past $11,000 this past November. It then corrected back to $9,000, only to surge again by early December to more than $15,000. Given the forces behind Bitcoin, that scenario is likely to continue into 2018 before the bubble bursts. This article will in part address those forces behind Bitcoin’s bubble, and why the bubble will continue to grow near term.

 

What’s a financial asset bubble? Few agree. But few would argue that Bitcoins and other crypto currencies are today clearly in a global financial asset bubble.  Bitcoin and other crypto currencies are the speculative investing canary in the global financial asset coalmine.

One can debate what constitutes a financial bubble – i.e. how much prices must rise short term or how much above long term average rates of increase – but there’s no doubt that Bitcoin price appreciation in 2017 is a bubble by any definition. At less than $1000 per coin in January, Bitcoin prices surged past $11,000 this past November. It then corrected back to $9,000, only to surge again by early December to more than $15,000. Given the forces behind Bitcoin, that scenario is likely to continue into 2018 before the bubble bursts. As of mid-December, Bitcoin is trading at $17,009 and predicted to surge higher. Some analysts are even predicting the price for Bitcoin will escalate to $142,000, now that trading has gone mainstream on the CBOE and other commodity futures exchanges. The question of the moment, however, is what might be the contagion effects on other markets?

This article will in part address those forces behind Bitcoin’s bubble, and why the bubble will continue to grow near term. But Bitcoin and other crypto currencies are but one case example of financial asset price acceleration underway in global markets that also are either in, or approaching, bubble territory – a condition typical of a late credit cycle reaching its limits.

Other asset bubble candidates include equities markets, especially in the USA, Japan and some emerging market economies (EMEs); corporate junk bond markets globally; and high risk bank loans – particularly in Europe, Japan and Asia – emerging on a base of trillions of dollars of pre-existing non-performing bank loans.

In the following, the determinants and driving forces behind the growing financial asset bubbles are discussed, with special focus of Bitcoin and crypto currencies which have a potential of “contagion” to other financial markets more than most commentators today like to admit.

Less debatable are potential contagion effects from global equities, now approaching bubble territory in some regions like the USA and Japan. Or corporate junk bond markets worldwide. Or high risk leveraged loans, the return of CLOs, and the late-cycle trend increasingly apparent among banks toward covenant-lite lending terms, as the search for yield becomes ever more desperate everywhere.

Red Flags and Forewarnings

There are no lack of “red flags” being raised by various legitimate sources forewarning that the global economy is now producing levels of financial fragility that may lead toward one or more significant financial instability events within the next few years.1

 

Bank of International Settlements

There are no lack of “red flags” being raised by various legitimate sources forewarning that the global economy is now producing levels of financial fragility that may lead toward one or more significant financial instability events within the next few years.

One consistent source in recent months raising the red flag has been the Bank of International Settlements.  This past summer, the BIS warned in its review that the magnitude of non-financial corporate debt globally was actually far larger than reported by most – especially outside the US, in dollar terms, and often held off balance sheet.

Of course, debt alone is not solely the problem. Debt can keep on rising, but once its cost (interest rate) begins to rise as well, or is not otherwise obtainable or obtainable only on adverse terms. Then the problems begin.  And with the problems come decelerating asset prices that lead to credit disappearing, with eventual spillover to the real economy which then contracts in tandem with financial markets. That latter, real contraction then exacerbates the financial, and the two sectors thereafter feed on each other in a downward spiral, until government policy makers otherwise find a way to put a floor under the asset deflation. That’s exactly what happened in 2007-2009. The BIS is warning the early stages of escalating debt accumulation that leads to just such a scenario may be appearing once again, noting specifically that the central banks since 2008 have been the main culprit with their monetary easing “fueling bubbles in asset prices”.

That the central banks of the advanced economies are the ”fundamental” force and cause behind the debt escalation is irrefutable. Since 2008 in particular, led by the Federal Reserve, the central banks in the USA, Europe, Japan and China have pumped around $25 trillion in QE, QE rollover and traditional bond (and stock and other securities) buying operations into the global economy2. Changes in global financial market structure in recent decades have exacerbated the development, as have technology trends responsible for accelerating money demand, velocity, and development of non-fiat (central bank) forms of money substituting for credit.

This has led Claudio Borio, Director of the Monetary and Economics Department of the BIS, in that publication’s most recent quarterly Review in December 2017, to conclude “The vulnerabilities that have built around the world during the long period of unusually low interest rates have not gone away. High debt levels, in both domestic and foreign currency, are still there. And so are frothy valuations, in turn underpinned by low government bond yields – the benchmark for the pricing of all assets. What’s more, the longer the risk-taking continues, the higher the underlying balance sheet exposures may become. Short-run calm comes at the expense of possible long-run turbulence.”3

 

Central Bankers and Global Investors

Borio is not alone.  Mohammed El-Erian, Chief Economic Advisor to Allianz, the giant global financial company, and frequent commentator on the global economy, has added that liquidity and volatility risks over the past few months have risen noticeable and “have spread to virtually every corner of the public markets…structurally amplified by the proliferation of certain ETFs”4 – (more on which shortly below).

Mervyn King, former governor of the Bank of England, also recently raised concerns about non-bank debt levels and ratios that are today higher than at year end 2007 at the start of the last financial crisis. King added the dominant theme of the post 2008 period has been the rolling over of debt instead of its deleveraging during a period of excessive low interest rates for eight years. And, as he further noted, once rates rise “we shall see the force of what economist Joseph Schumpeter described as “creative destruction”…that will correct the misplaced pattern of investments induced by inappropriate exchange rates and excessively low interest rates”. King goes on to ominously warn that despite more capitalisation banks “are still vulnerable to runs” and it would take only a “a few interconnected defaults” to set in motion “a reappraisal of the effective leverage of the financial system”– aka a wipeout of valuations by means of massive financial asset price deflation.

The Peoples Bank of China Director, Zhou Xiaochuan, echoed King this past October, warning of trouble and unpopular decisions on the horizon, as the global economy was at risk of entering “a sharp correction, what we call a Minsky moment’..”– after the economist, Hyman Minsky, who wrote that banking under capitalism was inherently unstable and prone to repeated financial crises.6

Former US Federal Reserve Bank Chair, Alan Greenspan, warns of bond prices that are “in a bubble”.  And outgoing Fed chair, Janet Yellen, worried publicly in her most recent press conference about “the US debt trajectory”. Ironically, those central bank chairpersons most responsible to the massive, excess liquidity injections since 1985, that provided the ultimate foundation for the unprecedented debt leverage in financial markets, are the same that now warn of its pending consequences in unsustainable asset prices.

Research department analysts of some of the world’s largest banks have also been joining in raising the alarm. Bank of America-Merrill Lynch’s latest survey of its investors revealed that those indicating equities were over-valued now exceeded those similarly indicating such on the eve of the 2000 dot.com stock bust. Similarly, Deutschebank credit analysts have recently calculated that global asset prices are the most elevated ever, including before the 1929 crash.7

 

Global Business Press Commentators

Increasingly, editorialists in the global business press have begun writing increasingly on the emergence of financial asset bubbles, growing excessive debt levels and ratios, the failure of corporations and households to deleverage since 2008, complacency of investors, failure to see the new causes of the next crisis by looking in the rearview mirror only at the previous one, overly sanguine estimations of future global economic growth, accelerating income inequality and so on.

Perhaps representative of this tribe is the dean of global business commentary, Martin Wolf, at the Financial Times global business daily, who worries of the lack of “no corporate deleveraging” since 2008, the prospect of highly leveraged banks prone to losses, emerging market dollarised corporate bonds exposed to currency risk, non-bank corporate debt growing faster than productive capital, low investment and high indebtedness in general, and high political risks.8

 

Corporate Chief Financial Officers

Even those players “down in the weeds” of the business world have begun expressing concern about the state of financial asset markets.  According to a quarterly poll of companies in North America with more than $1 billion in revenue by Deloitte in the third quarter 2017, its “CFO Signals Survey”, only 29% of CFOs surveyed expressed optimism, down from 44% in the preceding quarter.9

 

BITCOIN Bubble: Canary in the Financial Asset Coalmine?

Discussion of the forces driving the Bitcoin bubble – as well as the numerous emerging other crypto-currencies – requires distinguishing between causal factors that are “fundamental”, “enabling”, or just “precipitating”.  That’s true not only for Bitcoin and cryptos, but as well for other emerging bubbles in equities, junk bonds, high risk bank lending and low quality, dollarised emerging market debt – i.e. the other emerging financial bubble candidates.

The key fundamental forces driving Bitcoin’s bubble are technology and excess liquidity. Bitcoin is both software tech and fintech.

 

Blockchain as Technology Driver

The technology is called “blockchain” which serves as the underlying platform for Bitcoin and emerging crypto-currencies. Blockchain provides global peer-to-peer transactions over the Internet, cutting out middlemen, and thus saving business and consumers significant costs.  It is software that in effect creates for users an “online digital wallet”.  It is blockchain software tech that is giving rise to digital currencies, the hottest new area of fintech.  Software tech companies doing Blockchain development create their version of crypto currency, often giving it in exchange to an investor funding the company.  A crypto currency developed by the software tech company thus serves as a kind of de facto “digital equity offering”.10 And investors are rushing in. A kind of investor herd mentality has emerged. The hottest business conferencing product today is explaining Bitcoin and cryptos opportunities to would-be investors, as well as to other senior managers who want to avoid being blindsided by the new technology.

Discussion of the forces driving the Bitcoin bubble – as well as the numerous emerging other crypto-currencies – requires distinguishing between causal factors that are “fundamental”, “enabling”, or just “precipitating”.

The potential market for blockchain is immense – $134 trillion of transactions in the global banking sector alone.  Given the huge potential for cost saving across industries, Blockchain software development companies are proliferating globally at a rapid rate, and speculative investors are throwing record funding at them in hope of striking it rich with the one whose version of Blockchain becomes the quasi-standard and/or is early to market.

In the process, the Blockchain tech companies spin off their version of digital currency. Some cryptos, like Bitcoin and Ethereum, are considered “blue chip”, while many others are “small cap” cryptos.  As of several months ago there were at least 200 such companies, most of which were engaging in, or preparing, an initial public offering to raise financing, an ICO (initial coin offering).

Given the herd mentality, media hype, and demand, multiplying ICOs result quickly in IPO initial prices rising. Bitcoin’s price appreciation is serving as a kind of potential and benchmark for the “me too” ICOs. The latter’s price appreciation then spills over, driving up the price of other cryptos and Bitcoin.  The ICOs are feeding off of each other.

 

Enabling Forces Driving Bitcoin-Cryptos Bubble

If Blockchain and software tech company ICOs are driving Bitcoin and other crypto pricing, what’s additionally creating the bubble?  Bitcoin prices started off 2017 less than $1,000 a coin. But have accelerated through 2017. So what’s behind it the past year?  Who is buying Bitcoin and cryptos, driving up prices, apart from early investors in the companies?

Initially, pre-2017, it was mostly “retail” buyers from the tech community who believed government “fiat” money was going to be eclipsed by digital currencies. It shared some similarities to pre-2000 herd investing in anything that had an “e” or a “com” associated with it. It was analogous perhaps to a day trader becoming obsessed with “social media” or Facebook, except now the objective was money and not communication. It was cultural and even philosophical.

The absence of government regulation and potential taxation of speculative profits from price appreciation has served as another important driver of the Bitcoin bubble bringing in still more investors and demand and therefore price appreciation.

But that initial techie demand source was soon eclipsed by buyers who realised that speculative profits from accelerating Bitcoin prices were not taxed by government. And without a central clearing house it was not likely the government would soon regulate and tax.  So the absence of government regulation and potential taxation of speculative profits from price appreciation has served as another important driver of the Bitcoin bubble bringing in still more investors and demand and therefore price appreciation. No regulation, no taxation has also led to price manipulation by “pumping and dumping” by well-positioned investors.

Another factor driving price is that Bitcoin has become a substitute product for Gold and Gold futures. Buyers who were highly speculative and risk taking, who might have otherwise invested heavily in gold and gold futures trading, see Bitcoin and cryptos as a better speculative play.  Gold has become less volatile, and speculative profits come from volatility.  Gold no longer has it; Bitcoin does. Bitcoin is thus “as good as gold”, and in fact even better as a speculative play.  As a gold substitute, Bitcoin and cryptos may therefore be diverting investment from gold, further driving demand for the former by sucking it away from the latter. That may explain Gold’s recent chronic lack of price volatility, at least in part. Like Gold, Bitcoin is therefore more a commodity, as well as a kind of substitute for stock in initial public offerings by software tech companies.

What Bitcoin is not, as yet, is a form of general currency, except in very select cases.  It is still accepted for transactions by relatively few.  As a medium of exchange, a basic characteristic of currency and money, Bitcoin is still in development stage. But as a volatile commodity, highly profitable speculative play, it has already established itself. And in today’s world of ever-desperate search for yield, as markets begin to “top out” late in the credit cycle, Bitcoin has become something of a kind of “commodity lodestar” for investors conditioned to high risk and high profitability success in financial markets since 2009.

But what’s really driving Bitcoin pricing in recent months well into bubble territory is its emerging legitimation by traditional financial institutions.  This has come in various forms. First is the imminent acceptance of it by the commodity clearing houses, in particular the CME and CBOE.  This means that futures and derivatives trading on Bitcoin are set to begin in December 2017. Bitcoin ETFs are likely not far behind. Thus further speculative profit opportunities appear on the horizon, which stimulates its initial demand. And it’s this derivatives investing opportunity that mainstream finance is interested in. The “shorting” of excessive Bitcoin price appreciation by mainstream big investors now looms large. The CME and other clearing houses on the horizon thus make basic Bitcoin speculation legitimate, and that’s pulling in more demand.

Reportedly, big US hedge funds are also poised to go “all in” once CME options and futures trading are established. Declarations of support for Bitcoin has also come lately from some sovereign countries and plans to develop widespread markets for it – as in Japan. That also legitimises it. Other sovereign players, like Mexico and Indonesia, have raised their opposition – no doubt fearful of cryptos currencies’ potential long run threat to their controlling their own fiat money supply and therefore interest rate central bank monetary tools.

Among traditional commercial bankers a form of legitimation, albeit cautious, has also recently emerged, serving to justify Bitcoin demand.  While CEOs of big traditional commercial banks, like JPM Chase’s Jamie Dimon, have called Bitcoin “a fraud”, they simultaneously have declared plans to facilitate trading in the Bitcoin-Crypto market, no doubt as an initial step to later more direct participation.

 

Government Regulation

A question remains whether government regulators will soon intervene to regulate Bitcoin and other cryptos in the near term. The answer is “not so long as Bitcoin et. al. remain a commodity speculative play”, in this writer’s opinion.  The winds of financial regulation are dissipating, especially in the USA. That works against it.  Moreover, the fact that the US government has given the green light to the CME and other clearing house to establish trading in options strongly suggests the government will wait and see what transpires.  Should Bitcoin expand its development into a transactions based currency, however, that will precipitate government intervention.  Should it fail, it would mean a loss of control of the money supply, a problem also growing for the Fed and other central banks due to other technological and global forces.  Governments will protect their fiat currencies.  In fact, more likely is that they will eventually issue their own official “digital” currency at some point. Thereafter, other digital currencies will in effect become counterfeit and illegal tender.

 

Bitcoin as “Digital Tulips”

Bitcoin demand and price appreciation may also be understood as the consequence of the historic levels of excess liquidity in financial markets today. Like technology forces, that liquidity is the second fundamental force behind its bubble.  To explain the fundamental role of excess liquidity driving the bubble, one should understand Bitcoin as “digital tulips”, to employ a metaphor.

The Bitcoin bubble is not much different from the 17th century Dutch tulip bulb mania. Tulips had no intrinsic use value but did have a “store of value” simply because Dutch society of financial speculators assigned and accepted it as having such.  Once the price of tulips collapsed, however, it no longer had any form of value, save for horticultural enthusiasts.

What fundamentally drove the tulip bubble was the massive inflow of money capital to Holland that came from its colonial trade in spices and other commodities in Asia. The excess liquidity generated could not be fully re-invested in real projects in Holland.  When that happens, holders of the excess liquidity create new financial markets in which to invest the liquidity – not unlike what’s happened in recent decades with the rise of unregulated global shadow banking, financial engineering of new securities, proliferating liquid markets in which securities are exchanged, and a new layer of professional financial elite as “agents” behind the proliferating new markets for the new securities.11

 

Central Bank Excess Liquidity as Fundamental

The second “fundamental” factor behind the Bitcoin and crypto-currency bubble therefore is the massive amount of liquidity injected into the global economy by central banks in the US, Europe and North Asia in recent decades. Today far more money capital exists worldwide than can be, or is being, invested in making real goods and services. The excess does not remain idle. The combined liquidity injection since 2008 by the major central banks of US, Eurozone, Britain, Japan and China alone amounts to nearly $25 trillion since 2008. Led by the Fed, the central banks of the major economies noted have injected much of that $25 trillion directly themselves by means of their “Quantitative Easing” programs.  The chronic low interest rates that followed for eight years have allowed non-bank businesses to issue trillions of dollars (and dollar equivalent) corporate debt in the form of corporate bonds, commercial paper, etc.12 

Along with record corporate profits, also in the trillions since 2008, they’ve distributed to shareholders trillions of dollars by means of stock buybacks and dividend payouts.  In the US alone buybacks-dividends have exceed $1 trillion every year for the past five.  Rates have been so low for so long, multinational corporations have issued record bond debt to pay dividends and finance buybacks – in the process keeping nearly $3 trillion in their offshore subsidiaries in order to avoid paying US taxes.

At the root of it, the foundation of it, has been central bank monetary policies of QE and zero bound interest rates that have created a mountain of excess liquidity – far more than is investible in real assets in the advanced economies.  Accumulating within the investor class, trillions of dollars, euros, yen, etc. are still on the sidelines.  Institutional investors in particular must find an outlet for the liquidity.  Much of it goes into financial asset markets. (Other offshore to emerging markets, the rest hoarded on balance sheets or diverted to tax shelters).  As traditional stock and bond markets “top out”, the need for yield is diverting a significant portion of the excess liquidity into fintech, and some of that into cryptos. And as the primary blue chip crypto, increasingly into Bitcoin today and, tomorrow, into futures, options, and other derivatives based on it.

 

Bitcoin Bubble Potential Contagion

A subject of current debate is whether Bitcoin and other cryptos can destabilise other financial asset markets and therefore the banking system in turn, in effect provoking a 2008-2009 like financial crisis.

Deniers of the prospect point to the fact that Cryptos constitute only about $400 billion in market capitalisation today.  That is dwarfed by the $55 trillion equities and $94 trillion bond markets. The “tail” cannot wag the dog, it is argued.  But quantitative measures are irrelevant. What matters is investor psychology.  A big enough crash in cryptos could provoke a move out of other financial assets as a precautionary action. As other financial markets themselves surge into near, or actual, bubble territory investors increasingly look for a timing event to “cash in” and move to the sidelines. And the higher the rise of equities – especially in the US and Japan – goes the greater the potential psychological sensitivity to any major financial asset contraction anywhere.

A bitcoin-crypto crash could have a contagion effect on other commodity prices; or on ETFs in general and thus stock and bond ETF prices.

A Bitcoin and cryptos severe price devaluation event could provoke such a response, especially as other traditional financial institutions – commercial banks, hedge funds, clearing houses etc. – become more deeply involved in crypto markets as investors, facilitators, or in other ways.  For example, should cryptos develop their own ETFs, a collapse of crypto ETFs might very easily spill over to stock and bond ETFs – which are a source themselves of inherent instability today in the equities market.  A related contagion effect may occur within the Clearing Houses themselves.  If trading in Bitcoin and cryptos as a commodity becomes particularly large, and then the price collapses deeply and at a rapid rate, it might well raise issues of Clearing House liquidity available for non-crypto commodities trading. A bitcoin-crypto crash could thus have a contagion effect on other commodity prices; or on ETFs in general and thus stock and bond ETF prices.

Stated more speculatively, as Bitcoin and other crypto-currencies continue to ‘go mainstream’, will the new financial asset play the role similar to the toxic ‘Subprime Mortgage Bond’ in 2008? Just as subprimes precipitated a crash in the derivative, Credit Default Swaps (CDS) at the giant insurance company, AIG, in September 2008 – setting off the global financial crash that year – could the Bitcoin and crypto-currency bubble precipitate a collapse in the new derivative, Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) in stock and bond markets in 2018-19, ushering in yet another general financial crisis?

 

Concluding Remarks & Predictions

In an increasingly integrated global financial asset markets world new forms of potential contagion may be lurking yet unforeseen.  Financial fragility should not be underestimated throughout the system, especially as it appears the credit cycle is nearing its peak, when historic capital gains have been reaped, and the psychology of investors looks increasingly at whether to “time the market”, cash in and move to the sidelines and wait.  It wouldn’t take much, or a very large market, to precipitate such a move. And once the momentum began, no government or central bank counter-action could stop it next time.

The US and global economy today are approaching the latter stages in the credit cycle, during which financial asset bubbles begin to appear and the real economy appears to be at peak performance (the calm before the storm?). This scenario was explained in this writer’s 2016 book, “Systemic Fragility in the Global Economy”. And in my follow-on book, “Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes”, I predict should the Federal Reserve raise short term US interest rates another 1% in 2018, as it has announced its intent to do in 2018, it could very well invert the US Treasury “yield curve” and set off a credit crash leading to Bitcoin, stock, and bond asset price bubbles bursting.

 

About the Author

Dr. Jack Rasmus is author of the just published book, “Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes? Monetary Policy and the Next Depression, Clarity Press, July 2017, and the previously published “Systemic Fragility in the Global Economy, also by Clarity Press, January 2016. For more information: http://ClarityPress.com/RasmusIII.html. He teaches economics at St. Marys College in Moraga, California, and hosts the radio show, Alternative Visions, on the Progressive Radio Network. He blogs at jackrasmus.com and his twitter handle is @drjackrasmus.

 

References

1. (2016). For this author’s quantitative index of financial fragility as predictor of instability, see the appendix equations in Jack Rasmus, “Systemic Fragility in the Global Economy”, Clarity Press, January.
2. Jack Rasmus. (2017). “Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes?”, Clarity Press, August. See the review of this book by Dr. Larry Souza in this issue of the European Financial Review.
3. Claudio Borio. https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1712_ontherecord.htm
4. Mohamed El-Erian and Huw van Steenis. (2017). “Economic prospects caught in a tug of war”, Financial Times, October 19, p. 18.
5. Mervyn King. (2017). “Warning Signs About the Global Economy”, Wall St. Journal, September 25, p.R6.
6. Gabriel Wildau and Tom MItichell, (2017) ‘Zhou’s ‘Minsky Moment’ see as reform signal to party elites’, Financial Times, October 23, p. 3.
7. Adam Samson. (2017). “BofA raises fears over “irrational exuberance”, Financial Times, November 15, 2017, p. 20; and Deutschebank, Global Financial Data, September 19.
8. Martin Wolf. (2017). “Fix the roof while the sun is shining”, Financial Times, December 6, 2017 p. 9.
9. Ciara Linnane, “Finance chiefs are becoming increasingly pessimistic about the future”, Marketwatch, Sept. 23.
10. For a survey and tutorial on blockchain, see “Blockchain Security and Demonstration”, by Yao Yao, Jack Rasmus-Vorrath, and Ivelin Angelov. https://github.com/JackKRasmus-Vorrath/Blockchain_Security_and_Demonstration/blob/master/MSDSProject_BlockChain_Final_v2.pdf
11. (2016). See chapters 11 and 12 of “Systemic Fragility in the Global Economy”, Clarity Press, which addresses the proliferating of unregulated shadow banking, new securities, and new highly liquid financial asset markets worldwide, and the relative shift to financial asset investing (from real asset) that has been underway in the 21st century.
12. In the US alone, more than $6 trillion in corporate bonds have been issued

The Duel Between Big Tech and Big Government

cyber law concept with 3d rendering robotic hand holding gavel judge

By Graham Vanbergen

Just five years ago you had no notion that “big data” would overtake oil as the number one traded commodity in the world, never heard of Bitcoin, that social media would play a significant role in reshaping global politics, that artificial intelligence and automation would threaten our way of life. The power politics duel between big tech and government is on.  At this pace of change, what do you think the next few years will bring?

 

It is difficult to believe that in such a short time frame, global politics, led by a chaotic American administration would only arrive because technology pushed the boundaries of propaganda and social influence and with it a new and dangerous era of isolationism and protectionism. Threats to the world order that has dominated for the last seven decades are now commonplace.

It’s actually quite a scary moment in time.

Tech firms have captured an amazing 42 percent of all the rises in the value of America’s stock market since 2014.1

Last year, Ford fired is boss Mark Fields for his complacency about technology despite near record profits in a challenging year, whilst Ford’s competitor General Motors goes all out in developing a range of autonomous electric cars.

Today, plastic cards make up 66 percent of transactions. Collectively, electronic transfers make up almost 99 percent of all global transactions – welcome to the cashless society – it’s already arrived.

Gene editing, a new form of personalised health care is about to arrive and trigger a total transformation of the expectations of health care and human longevity. The insurance industry is about to radically change with it as personalised data drives both product and pricing.

Half dozen crypto-currencies led by Bitcoin are now worth $650 billion in a market now overrun by hundreds of crypto-currencies.

We are, right now, on the threshold of a new era, just as industrialisation was in the mid eighteenth century. Then, it was a period of huge social and economic change that transformed human life from an agrarian society to an industrial one. It involved the extensive re-organisation of both the economy and the world we lived in. Centralised factories powered by coal and steam changed life radically and with it the institutions that supported society literally collapsed over a period of 70 years as society went through profound change. Politics was forced into dramatic change too.

Industrialisation and globalisation as we understand it are already becoming the old days and the time that civil society has to prepare for such fundamental and unstoppable adjustment is considerably shorter than that of the last industrial revolution.

For those whose jobs will be replaced by automation this time around, it’s the speed of the change that will cause huge political dissention.

Within just a few years driverless technology will see taxi drivers, bus drivers and America’s biggest workforce – the truck driver, moved towards obsolescence.  Multilingual artificial intelligent systems will replace another massive workforce – customer service workers. Then factory jobs will decline as reliance on human labour is replaced by more cost-effective manufacturing. Algorithms will be managing just about everything in daily life for ordinary citizens. For those whose jobs will be replaced by automation this time around, it’s the speed of the change that will cause huge political dissention.

Technology has already proved that it will propel a few people into ultra-wealth and political influence. The decisions of less people you can count on one hand will determine what half of humanity can see and read each and every day. The high profile owners of Amazon, Google and Facebook have amply demonstrated this already.

 

Already we can see the effects of these technologies on the economies of the western world. Conventional economics, such as it is, dictates that low unemployment drives wages up but at 4.1 and 4.2 percent unemployment in the US and UK, average earnings have, in real terms, fallen. This is in the backdrop of swiftly rising corporate profits, inequality and rapidly accelerating poverty – a deliberate result of the current political neoliberal ideology.2

From a political standpoint we have evidence of what is likely to happen next. The new technologies of the last industrial revolution were harnessed in such a way, as to manifest itself as a creeping authoritarianism that, for instance, gave rise to the crushing of trade union movements and any notion of societal income distribution.

Today, Britain’s recent Trade Union Act, Public Space Protection Orders, the “Snoopers Charter” along with the approaching abolition of the Human Rights Act are all dire warning signs. The alarming reduction in press freedom and censorship of social media and independent news outlets is another.

US constitutional attorney John Whitehead, counsel in the Paula Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton describes what is emerging in America: “We are inching ever closer to a constitutional crisis the likes of which we have never seen before, and “we the people” are woefully unprepared and ill-equipped to deal with a government that is corrupt, unjust, immoral, unaccountable, non-transparent, fascist and as illegitimate as they come.”

Whitehead is describing the failure of the state in rapidly changing times.

This is evidenced by a truly Orwellian system built by Palantir, a data-mining company constructed by President Trump’s tech advisor Peter Thiel, who contributed to Trump’s ascendency to the Whitehouse in the social media coup over democracy. The Intercept describes this new technology as “deploying a new intelligence system, that will assist in President Trump’s efforts to deport millions of immigrants from the United States”.3

It is a “system providing its users access to intelligence platforms maintained by the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the FBI, and an array of other federal and private law enforcement entities. It provides agents access to information on a subject’s schooling, family relationships, employment information, phone records, immigration history, foreign exchange program status, personal connections, biometric traits, criminal records, and home and work addresses.”

What this shows is that would be tyrants, now armed with new and ever more powerful tools will be able to attack and punish their perceived enemies whilst controlling ordinary citizens with frightening technologies. Social credit scoring systems are due for nationwide implementation in just two years time in China. Behave in a way that the government does not approve of and you will be penalised.

Many researchers say machine-learning algorithms are being given far too much power already. They are invisibly influencing decisions on all manner of important issues to society. The corporations who build them create the image that they are unbiased and objective. Edward Snowden’s 2013 revelations of government surveillance tools demonstrated you cannot trust government with technology or the corporations that build them.

There is a certain inevitability about these new technologies, just as it was in the 1850’s. A “crisis of governing” atmosphere already exists in the democratic west where politicians are now no longer beholden to constituents or their communities but to online supporters. They are no longer looking to persuade people with ideas; they are merely identifying those most likely to vote for them and will exclude everyone else. This is how communities will fall apart in the near future.

The likely scenario further down the line is that working age adults could well be facing chronic unemployment and plummeting living standards as a result of the fourth industrial revolution. Reactionary and revolutionary forces may gain a foothold to defend economically crushed communities, as politicians simply no longer respond to their needs.

The pace of change is quick. The transfer of power will be to an ever more authoritarian government or a tech regime. Either way, feasible democratic options are likely to evaporate in years to come.

Contempt for politicians will rise even further, not only among citizens but from the tech industry, which often assumes that a short-term governing party is little more than an obstacle to be overcome anyway.

Things will probably get worse before they have any chance to get better. For instance, after years of dismal reports and data, climate change has simply not got politically scary enough. Does it have to get violent before they listen?

At the beginning of the information technology revolution in the 1990s there was widespread hope that it spelt doom for authoritarians on the grounds that they would not be able to control it. The opposite has happened. The Internet has not democratised anywhere near as much as we have been led to believe.

In the meantime, excuses for government’s are quickly running out. First it was the inflationary period, then unemployment, then public debt, then financial deregulation so that citizens could borrow money to buy the type of things they wanted but could no longer afford. Everyone is tired of this failed economic experiment.

As demonstrated with Trump, the duel is already on as tech firms attempt to gain control of politics as they now understand they have the capability to dictate who gets into power.

The pace of change is quick. The transfer of power will be to an ever more authoritarian government or a tech regime. Either way, feasible democratic options are likely to evaporate in years to come.

About the Author

graham-webGraham Vanbergen’s business career culminated in a Board position in one of Britain’s largest property portfolio’s, owned by one of the biggest financial institutions in the world. Today he is founder and contributing editor of TruePublica.org.uk and director of the Equity Research Centre that focusses on Britain’s housing crisis.

References

1. The Economist: https://www.economist.com/news/business-and-finance/21733460-conventional-firms-have-last-got-their-technology-act-together-2018-will-be-year
2. The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/18/real-wages-fall-despite-low-levels-of-unemployment
3. The Intercept: https://theintercept.com/2017/03/02/palantir-provides-the-engine-for-donald-trumps-deportation-machine/

Current Economic Development is Unsustainable. How Can We Reverse this Trend?

By Jacques Prescott

In 1987, with the publication of the Brundtland report, the world was confronted once again with the dire reality of a collapsing environment and the concept of sustainable development emerged as a solution. Thirty years later, despite tremendous efforts at the global and local levels, real progress towards sustainability seems to be deterred by the dark forces of the markets, financial systems and corporate lobbies.  What can be done to reverse the situation and achieve sustainable results?

Sustainable Development, A Promising Concept

Following an international consultation chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland, who was then the Prime Minister of Norway, the UN Commission on Environment and Development published “Our Common Future”.1 This report described the daunting environmental problems of the 1980s: uncontrolled population growth, excessive deforestation and grazing, destruction of tropical forests, extinction of living species, increased greenhouse effect causing climate change, acid rain, erosion of the stratospheric ozone layer, etc. It also emphasised social-economic issues and in particular the perverse effects of unbridled economic growth and over-consumption of resources by the better-off.

The Commission proposed a definition of sustainable development that is still widely recognised and seen as a beacon to guide our efforts towards a better world: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.

The Brundtland report succeeded in demonstrating that the global economy and ecology are deeply intertwined. Beyond the economic interdependence of nations, we must now deal with their ecological interdependence. Since the development crisis is global, the solutions must be as well.

To this end, the report proposed a series of strategic objectives that included changing the quality of economic growth, controlling demographics, meeting basic human needs, preserving and enhancing the resource base, taking into account the environment in developing new technologies and integrating ecological and economic concerns into decision-making.

Brundtland identified solutions that apply on a global scale. For example, reduce energy consumption in industrialised countries and develop renewable energies, encourage massive reforestation in countries affected by desertification, implement tax and land reforms to reduce pressures on ecosystems and adopt an international convention for the protection of biodiversity. Although these measures were aimed primarily at protecting the environment, the Brundtland Report stressed the importance of combating poverty and injustice, which are both causes and effects of environmental problems.

To realise and finance this ecological shift, the Brundtland Commission requested to reform international institutions, notably the World Bank and the IMF, which should better take into account social and environmental objectives and alleviate the debt of the poorest countries. The Commission also recommended a reorientation of military spending for the fight against poverty and inequality and challenged large companies to engage in more responsible production and consumption.

How did we progress since the Brundtland report?

Brundtland’s global perspective and recommendations have guided the United Nations for the past thirty years. From the Earth Summit of Rio in 1992, to the adoption of the 17 global sustainable development goals in 2015 and the 2016 Paris agreement on climate change, governments of the world have time and again agreed on a set of guiding principles, objectives and agendas towards sustainability. Around the world, businesses, institutions, non-government organisations and local authorities followed suit with engagements and actions. As new approaches developed, we have seen the rise of organic farming, renewable energy production, ecological design, environmental certification, corporate social responsibility, responsible investment, green economy, multiple capital accounting, life cycle and sustainability analysis, the greening of production processes and green marketing; the latter all too often leading to unscrupulous green-washing.

This collective action brought its share of progress. The number of people living in extreme poverty has been reduced, more people have access to safe drinking water, fewer children die in early childhood and fewer mothers die during childbirth. We’ve also seen a stabilisation of the stratospheric ozone layer, a promising decline in the rate of deforestation in some regions, and a rapid growth in the renewable energy sector. But the key issues raised by the Brundtland report are left unresolved. A group of 15,000+ scientists from 184 countries recently stated that current economic development clearly is unsustainable, impairing the life-sustaining mechanisms of the biosphere and putting at risk humanity’s future.2 As Professor James H. Brown puts it: “Continual population growth and economic development on a finite Earth are biophysically impossible. They violate the laws of physics, especially thermodynamics, and the fundamental principles of biology. Population growth requires the increased consumption of food, water and other essentials for human life. Economic development requires the increased use of energy and material resources to provide goods, services and information technology”.3

Motivated by short term economic growth at any cost and personal gains, political leaders are more inclined to fulfill the demands of oligarchic lobbies than the legitimate expectations of their constituents.

Under present conditions, the plundering of natural resources and the degradation of the environment continue unabated, climate change threatens more than ever the most vulnerable people and ecosystems, and the planet’s carrying capacity is about to be exceeded. The gap between rich and poor is steadily widening, food insecurity and indebtedness are advancing, democracy is on the wane and propaganda is invading mainstream media. The unprecedented level of prosperity and wealth showed by a bunch of happy few countries and individuals is deceptive and definitely unsustainable as it doesn’t take into account the negative ecological and social impacts of economic activity.

Despite their outspoken commitment to sustainable development, governments fail to deliver positive results on this front. Motivated by short term economic growth at any cost and personal gains, political leaders are more inclined to fulfill the demands of oligarchic lobbies than the legitimate expectations of their constituents. How can you explain otherwise that despite their commitment to reduce GHG emissions, G20 governments still spend nearly four times more on fossil fuels than developing renewable energy?

The Role of Finance and Corporate Sectors

Economics is seen by sustainable development theorists as a tool or a mean to achieve sustainability. Accordingly, the banks and the financial systems, commerce and trade regulators, and private corporations have an inescapable role to play and a responsibility to assume if we ever want to succeed on this path.

In Europe and America, central bank policies are dictated by private bank lobbies. Current economic frameworks promote easy access to credit, leading to overconsumption and outrageous levels of indebtedness. According to the Institute of International Finance, the public and private indebtedness of the 44 richest countries reached 235% of GDP in 2017 compared with 190% in 2007. Governments and people alike are becoming hostages of the banks and their fraudulent monetary system. The 2008 collapse of the banking sector mainly caused by the Federal Reserve policy of low interest rates, easy money, junk mortgages and inadequate banking regulation led to the bankruptcy of thousands of households.4 In recent years the bankruptcy rate of mismanaged private banks around the world reached an outstanding summit to the detriment of numerous small savers. Even though the finance world recently adopted environmentally and socially responsible investments schemes and promoted green funding, their contribution to sustainable development is rather dire. This led the UN and the World Bank Group to issue a roadmap that proposes “an integrated approach that can be used by all financial sector stakeholders – both public and private – to accelerate the transformation toward a sustainable financial system”.5 Will the financial community by itself take effective measures against deregulation, tax evasion, large-scale market manipulation,6 corruption and money laundering? Probably not, unless it is forced to.

Driven by short-term gains and easy money, the business sector is flooding consumers with publicity, promoting questionable lifestyles, cheap short-lived products and encouraging overconsumption and wasting. Extensive use of bribery and corruption to access markets and resources, fiscal evasion, cartelisation, relocation of industrial jobs and social exploitation of workers are just a few of the unsustainable and unacceptable practices plaguing this sector. Despite a welcome engagement in fulfilling the UN sustainable development goals, green reporting and the adoption of social and environmental management standards, the business community has yet to develop and implement a more responsible growth pattern.

According to the Institute of International Finance, the public and private indebtedness of the 44 richest countries reached 235% of GDP in 2017 compared with 190% in 2007.

Similarly, international trade and commerce is controlled by giant multinationals promoting free trade agreements that expand their hegemony at the expense of small-scale local producers. It is a well-known fact that small island sugar cane producing states would simply need to be paid a fair price for their production to become economically sustainable. When will the World Trade Organization genuinely integrate fairness in its decision-making process? When will it act effectively against illegal cartels and trade dumping?

The military-industrial complex or the war/security industry constitutes in itself a major deterrent to sustainable development. This industrial sector has a strong record of engaging in threat inflation. In his recent book, Indefensible – Seven Myths That Sustain the Global Arms Trade,7 author Paul Holden points to “how the defence industry, the military, like-minded leaders and a pliant commercial press can collude to create magnified perceptions of threat to justify unpopular military endeavours, pursue particular foreign policy ideologies and divert massive financial resources to the industries and individuals who will be paid to defuse the threat”. The worldwide increase of military budgets seen in recent years (a rise of 43.6% since 2000 in the US alone to reach $611 billion in 2016;8 according to a 2017 study by Brown University in Rhode Island, a total of $5.6 trillion were spent for the US wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and post-9/11 veterans care and homeland security since 20019 is diverting huge amounts of money from badly needed social and environmental investments. According to various reliable sources and analysts, the military activity of the United States and other NATO members conducted under the false pretext of humanitarian motives, would have as main objectives to protect their economic hegemony, eliminate competition and enslave the people by destabilising and destroying emerging countries.

As economist Rodrigue Tremblay, sums it in his book, The Code for Global Ethics,10 humanity needs a serious moral stroke, to continue his march in a context of continuous progress and increased freedom. Finance, business and political leaders suffer from a lack of morality and must therefore adopt and practice a universal code of ethics that improves people’s lives. An ethics that concerned authorities have the responsibility to translate into concrete prescriptions.

A Four-pronged Approach to “Genuine” Sustainability

Thirty years ago the Brundtland report rightly identified the global challenges we are still facing today and offered a realistic way forward. It uncovered fundamental truths and demonstrated the interdependence of environmental protection and the reduction of poverty and the need to respect the biophysical limits of our world. In view of the current environmental and social crises, one must admit that despite the tremendous efforts of dedicated individuals and organisations, the UN and other international institutions chronically failed to counter the real deterrents to sustainable development and particularly neglected to address the deleterious impacts of unbridled economic growth and overconsumption mentioned by Brundtland.

A close look at the negotiation tables of international forums would show a complete control of Western governments over the agendas, resolutions and action plans. Third world states do not even have enough resources to participate to the discussions and even less influence the debates. As a result, most international agreements are designed to support the supremacy of the wealthier over the poorer states. Socially-oriented initiatives and nationalistic policies adopted by progressive developing states are much too often denounced, demonised or directly obstructed by imperialistic governments driven by private lobbies. Should national sovereignty and the rights to development not be respected by all?

Ecologists and a growing number of scientists, economists, jurists, opinion leaders and ordinary people have long advocated a simple strategy for sustainable development based on sobriety, simplicity, joyful austerity, respect and compassion aimed at reducing consumption of assets and resources while providing room for more socially and ecologically responsible investment. But can this be sufficient to convince the wealthiest to change their consuming habits and their ways of doing business?

The Brundtland report paved the way forward to a development centered on collaboration, sustainability, well-being, prosperity and peace. It is our duty to make it happen.

Although there is no quick-fix solution to this complex issue, a four-point ecological strategy proposed as early as 1984 by Michel Jurdant in his seminal book Le défi écologiste11 might provide a lead forward:

raising awareness on the extreme gravity and the deep causes of the global crisis, in order to better understand the relations between consumerism and ecological degradation of the biosphere, and question our current development schemes;

demystifying quantitative economic progress based on technical solutions that contribute to deepen inequalities in favour of a development based on well-being and quality of life;

proposing alternative lifestyles that are more sustainable and respectful;

encouraging a democratic public debate where alternative scenarios are designed and discussed in order to put back decision-making in the hands of local communities.

This strategy might succeed if young and old are adequately educated about the principles of sustainable development; if the financial community and the corporate sector is better regulated and honestly adopt and practice an ethical approach; if we focus on subsidiarity and encourage the accountability of elected officials and leaders; and especially learn to recognise and tame the influence of interest groups.

The Brundtland report paved the way forward to a development centered on collaboration, sustainability, well-being, prosperity and peace. It is our duty to make it happen.

Featured Image: Gro Harlem Brundtland, Chair of the Brundtland Commission on sustainable development 1987 © sciencelibary.info

About the Author

Jacques Prescott M.Sc., is a biologist and a consultant working for international and local organisations, author of several books, articles, reports and guidelines related to biodiversity and sustainable development policies, strategies and action plans. He is Associate Professor and Chair on eco-advising at Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, Canada.

References

1. The World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 400 p.
2. Ripple, W. J. et al., 2017. World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice. BioScience, Oxford Academics.
3. Brown, J.H., 2015. The Oxymoron of Sustainable Development. Bioscience 65(10):1027-1029
4. Tremblay, R., 2013. The Fed’s Monetary Policy of Zero Interest Rates. Global Research, March 05, 2013.
5. UN Environment and the World Bank Group, 2017. Roadmap for a Sustainable Financial System.
6. Zero Hedge, 2016. Every Single Bloody Market Is Manipulated.
7. Holden, P., 2017. Indefensible – Seven Myths That Sustain the Global Arms Trade. Zed Books, U.K.
8. Beaudoin, D. 2016. Quels pays ont le plus augmenté leur budget militaire? La réponse en carte. Radio-Canada, 20 mai 2016.
9. Crawford, N.C., 2017. United States Budgetary Costs of Post-9/11 Wars Through FY2018: A Summary of the $5.6 Trillion in Costs for the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Post-9/11 Veterans Care and Homeland Security. Watson Institute, Brown University.
10. Tremblay, R., 2010. The Code for Global Ethics: Ten Humanist Principles. Prometheus Books.
11. Jurdant, M., 1984. Le défi écologiste. Éditions du Boréal Express, Montréal, 432 p.

Feed the Future of Agriculture with Vertical Farming

A worker harvests fresh produce from a tower at Sky Greens vertical farm

By Mark Esposito, Terence Tse, Khaled Soufani and Lisa Xiong

One big misconception is that produce grown from nontraditional methods is of lesser quality, and it’s time to put it to rest. In this article, the authors elaborate on the much needed innovative future of agriculture and how it plays as a “new tech” that revolutionises farming.

Restaurants, food trucks, take-out counters, and the like: classic destinations you go to meet friends or just to ensure you get enough calories for the day. Despite the importance of this quotidian activity, food prices are rising at an alarming pace. This has been the recent trend whether you are in Dubai, New York, London, Paris, or Shanghai. Cambridge, UK, is no exception. Mat, a local restaurant owner, revealed: “We are always trying to get the best quality food with appealing prices, but the price just keeps on hiking up.” There is, of course, cheaper meat and produce, but the quality is lower as a result. These lower quality food sources are often laden with heavy pesticides and chemicals for ease of storage and transport. For the consumer, restaurateur, and food retailer, there is no clear picture of how and when food costs might begin to stabilise.
Mat’s situation can be seen as a miniature narrative of the global issue at hand: food pricing pressure triggered by a wearing down of traditional agriculture. On average, food prices have gone up by 2.6% annually in the past two decades on a global scale.1 In the UK, grocery prices have risen 0.2% annually since 2014. In America, the same situation occurs. In 2011 alone, US food prices increased by 5%.2 In the east, China experienced 2.7% food inflation in 2016.3 These ongoing rises in food costs persist around the world and threaten a baseline quality of life as more and more of our disposable income goes into buying food.

 

Trends Analysis: Why is Traditional Farming Frustrating Us?
Traditional farming refers to field farming, which requires labour, amenable weather conditions, adequate sunshine for photosynthesis, irrigation, and pesticides and herbicides to protect crops. These crops then require travelling long distances from farmlands in other continents to get to local tables. These activities in and of themselves do not reveal the reasons why food prices have been rising steadily, but using the DRIVE framework to investigate the megatrends influencing agriculture,4 we can detect reasons why traditional farming is no longer working as well as it used to.

According to the FAO, food production must increase by 70% before the year 2050 in order to meet global food needs.

• Demographic and Social Changes
When compared to the rise in global population, it becomes clear that the global food supply cannot keep up with demand. According to the FAO,5 food production must increase by 70% before the year 2050 in order to meet global food needs. What’s more, this growth must happen against a headwind – urbanisation trends are pushing people away from farming as a profession while taking over arable land at the same time.6
Meanwhile, cultural changes related to diet preferences among younger generations have taken a leap. More people are converting to vegetarianism and “superfoods”; foods like antioxidant-rich kale and protein-packed quinoa are favoured over conventional empty-calorie, carb-heavy foods like potatoes and processed dry pastas. In addition, local food initiatives have become more than a passing phenomenon. Demand for meat and produce from local farms continues to rise in response to environmental concerns and the conviction that fresh, not frozen, is the higher quality, better-tasting food.
Resource Scarcity
Agriculture takes up more than 70% of global water consumption. This tension over water usage adds to the total cost of agriculture. Food loss in the supply chain is another issue as perishable crops blemish and spoil during harvesting, packaging, processing, and distribution. According a report on food from field to fork, some activities could waste up to 50%.7 Moreover, the distance that some foods must travel shortens the number of days on the market, again cutting down on the amount of food available to consumers.
Inequality
In addition to longstanding problems with malnutrition and widespread poverty in developing countries, inequalities related to food prices have also arisen in industrialised countries. In places like the US, the cost of fresh foods have led vulnerable populations to opt instead for budget-priced, high-fat processed fast food. The consequence of these food “choices” is a nationwide obesity epidemic as well as an increase in the number of people developing diabetes. As demand for food and the costs of agriculture continue to rise, the prospects of improving these health and hunger conditions for low-income families will not be great.
Volatility
Agriculture is no stranger to volatility, which remains one of the industries most vulnerable to natural disasters. Climate change has caused more frequent extreme weather events in recent decades, which damages an entire season’s worth of harvest and worsens the rise in food prices. Higher temperatures also make crop pests more rampant. In addition, mutable government rules on crops can also drive up food prices. In the US, current ethanol mandates account for 10-15% of food price hikes. On top of that, regulations on herbicide, pesticide and fertiliser use are also positively related to lower crop yields.8 These forces, which determine the direction of price volatility, are here to stay.

Given these observations and changes seen through the lens of the DRIVE framework,9 the likelihood that traditional farming can continue to be a reliable and affordable source of food production is not that likely at all.

 

Vertical Farming is Born Out of Challenges.
One answer to food supply problems is coming from research labs to our dining tables. Vertical farming, a term coined by Dickson Despommier in his book The Vertical Farm: Feeding the World in the 21st Century in 2010,10 is the agricultural practice of producing food vertically in stacked-up layers. These farms make use of enclosed structures, like warehouses or ship containers, and can also be integrated into skyscrapers. Called “grow houses”, they provide a controlled environment to grow crops using soil pots in a hydroponic or aeroponic system. In this environment, crops receive the right amount of light, nutrients, and heat, regulated by an algorithms monitor. Here are some pioneers in the field:

• AeroFarms: A Local Farm
AeroFarms, harboured in a renovated steel plant in New Jersey, US, uses vertical farming to grow fresh and affordable produce. The annual yield is 130 times greater than that of a traditional field farm with the same surface area, and water consumption is 95% less than field farming, with zero pesticide use.11 One of the main virtues of vertical farming is independence from the land, or, to be more specific, the soil. The company employs aeroponics on a reusable fabric. Rather than exposing crops to sunshine horizontally, AeroFarms uses LED lights and manipulates the light spectrum to best fit their crops’ growth requirements. The products are then sold locally in grocery stores and supermarkets.

• Fujitsu: Vertical Farming for Medical Needs
Fujitsu, who made their name as an electronics maker, has experimented with vertical farming in empty semiconductor plants in Japan. They launched to market a low-potassium lettuce for patients suffering from kidney disease.12 The lettuce has only 100 mg of potassium per 100g of lettuce, which is less than one-fifth of what traditional lettuce contains. Due to the controlled environment, nutrients level can be manipulated to produce this distinctive lettuce. The demand has proven itself, with the market estimated to expand from ¥23.4 billion in 2013 to ¥150 billion in 2025.

• Sky Greens: Growing Produce When There is No Arable Land
Sky Greens is the first vertical farm to feed Singaporean dwellers in the densely populated and farmland-deprived region.13 The imbalance between 250 acres of farmland available to feed a population of five million has pushed growers in the direction of vertical farming. Sky Greens grows vegetables in A-shaped towers with an efficient rotating system for crops to absorb sunlight, which emulates the tropical climate of Singapore. Each tower can produce up to 10 times more than a field farm with the same surface area.

• Growtainer: Ready to Scale
Growtainer operates mobile and high-density vertical farms in modified 20’ or 40’ shipping containers.14 The modular units are simple and user-friendly. With all the necessary utilities set up inside, these small and insulated hydroponics farms can be monitored and operated remotely through the Internet, and even over smartphones with an app. The Growtainer system can be used in schools, restaurants, and military bases for leafy vegetables. Growtainer offers three major advantages: food security, year-round growing capacities, and simple operation. The company is scaling, with an increasing number of clients coming from the northeastern US, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Due to various factors related to geographical location, cultural difference, political support, investor dynamics, and local agricultural market conditions, what works for the above companies might not work for others entering vertical farming. Government policies on funding vary in different countries and even regions within local regulations. Dietary habits can also influence market popularity of certain crops. To identify such trends, partnerships with players in local food supply chains would provide practical insights on local barriers. Other challenges persist. In some regions, people are sceptical of this innovation and misunderstand vertical farming as “artificial vegetables”, which do not come off as particularly appetising. Though there may be no single model for vertical farming, its advantages over traditional field farming cannot be overlooked.
For managers interested in expanding into vertical farming, there are ways to minimise the expensive learning curve and improve their chances of success:

Change the Perception of Farming and Invest in “New Tech”
Traditional farming has been characterised as labour-intensive, vulnerable to climate change, and remote to a modern and urbanised lifestyle. In some places, farmers are associated with poverty, naivety, lack of education, and isolation. Few people are aware that vertical farming is likely to redefine the farming industry and revive its charms for educated young people. In the vertical farm, farmers are the new techies. Accuracy in operations and knowledge of computer-controlled systems and data analytics are prerequisites for vertical farming. Farmers are now data analysts, bio-scientists, and system supervisors. Understanding this transformation in farming provides managers with leverage in communicating the need to embrace vertical farming with different stakeholders.

Promote Farming Innovations and Educate Consumers
The average consumer has the misconception that produce grown with nontraditional methods is of lesser quality and taste. Promotional campaigns are a tactic that companies can use to interact with consumers explicitly to clarify the value of non–field farming crops and educate them on the nutritional and environmental benefits of vertical farming. Like wine-tastings, food-tasting events provide guests with the opportunity to sample hydroponic and aeroponic produce and judge the taste for themselves. These events also lend well to generating social media buzz. Vertical farming is not Frankenstein food, but might as well be without any efforts to educate the public.

Encourage Local Food Culture Through Governments and Food Associations
Governments and relevant associations are excellent networks to push local food culture. They are invested in the local economy, and local food production has been shown to help create employment.15 The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs of Canada actively pursues a regional local food strategy, and they have funded more than $40 million in projects in the province for the 2015-2016 fiscal year.16 Such government support is a sign that local food movements are a source of economic development with no signs of abating.

Vertical farming offers additional choices and growth potential that traditional farming techniques cannot realise. It is economically sensible, environmentally friendly, tech-savvy, and most importantly, health-sensitive.

Change of the Perception of Investors
Investors are essential if vertical farming is to scale successfully. AeroFarms, for instance, required six rounds of funding from nine investors, for a total equity funding around $95.8 million, to get to where they are today.17 To attract the attention of investors, the company does not label itself as a nontraditional farm but rather as “an urban agriculture and cleantech company”.18 Talking points to build consensus include the trend toward using technology to grow nutrient-specific crops like Fujitsu’s low-potassium lettuce. Another key point to stress is the profitability potential. Vertical farming’s high productivity rates, reduced water usage, and quality produce yields higher earnings at lower cost.

 

Conclusion
Vertical farming is not a fairytale; it is happening now. Though vertical farms can never be expected to replace traditional farming entirely, it is likely that they will have to complement each other if we are to meet the food demands of tomorrow. Vertical farming offers additional choices and growth potential that traditional farming techniques cannot realise. It is economically sensible, environmentally friendly, tech-savvy, and most importantly, health-sensitive. From grow house to table, vertical farming is revamping the future of agriculture.

Featured Image: Nice leafy vegetables at the Sky Greens vertical farm in Singapore / Reuters

About the Authors

Dr. Mark Esposito, PhD., is a Socio-Economic Strategist and bestselling author, researching MegaTrends, Business Model Innovations and Competitiveness. He works at the interface between Business, Technology and Government and co-founded Nexus FrontierTech, an Artificial Intelligence Studio. He holds appointments as Professor of Business and Economics at Hult International Business School and Grenoble Ecole de Management and he is equally a faculty member at Harvard University since 2011. Mark is an affiliated faculty of the Microeconomics of Competitiveness (MoC) network at Harvard Business School’s Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness and is currently co-leader of the network’s Institutes Council.

Dr. Terence Tse is an Associate Professor at ESCP Europe London campus and a Research Fellow at the Judge Business School in the UK. He is also head of Competitiveness Studies at i7 Institute for Innovation and Competitiveness. Terence has also worked as a consultant for Ernst & Young, and served as an independent consultant to a number of companies. Hee has published extensively on various topic of interests in academic publications and newspapers around the world. He has been interviewed by television channels including CCTV, Channel 2 of Greece, France 24, and NHK.

Dr. Khaled Soufani is Professor of Management Practice (Economics) and Director of the Executive MBA in the Judge Business School at the University of Cambridge, where he also directs the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and the Circular Economy Center. He has published extensively in the area of financial management and economic affairs of small and medium- sized enterprises. His current research interests relate to fast-expanding markets and the economics of innovation.

Lisa Xiong is a candidate to the Executive Doctorate of Business Administration at Ecole des Ponts Business School. She works as Teaching Associate for business schools in Europe, UAE and China. Her research interests cover inequalities, Chinese economic development, entrepreneurship and open innovation. Lisa is a linguist and social science investigator. Her ability to navigate both the east and west cultures allowed her to serve different communities, enterprises and clients in different parts of the world.

References

1. Fao.org (2017). FAO food price index. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved from http : //www.fao.org /worldfoodsituation/foodpricesindex/en/ 2. USDA (2017). USDA ERS – Food prices and spending. Retrieved from https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/food-prices-and-spending/

3. Scutt, D. (2017). Inflation in China is heating up fast. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://uk.businessinsider.com/inflation-in-china-is-heating-up-fast-2017-2?r=US&IR=T

4. Esposito, M. and Tse, T. (2017). Thrive in the new normal, DRIVE in uncertainty. The European Financial Review. Retrieved from http://www.europeanfinancialreview.com/?p=5577.

5. Fao.org (2009). Global agriculture towards 2050, How to feed the world. Retrieved from http://www. fao. org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/Issues_papers/HLEF2050_ Global_Agriculture.pdf

6. See Esposito and Tse, 2017

7. Goldenberg, S. (2016, July 14). From field to fork: the six stages of wasting food. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/14/from-field-to-fork-the-six-stages-of-wasting-food

8. Orland, S. (2012, March 15). Why are food prices so high? Forbes.com. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveodland/2012/03/15why-are-food-prices-so-high /#25b24bb46962

9. See Esposito and Tse, 2017

10. Despommier, D. 2010. The vertical farm: feeding the world in the 21st century. New York: Thomas Dunne Books

11. AeroFarms (2017). AeroFarms is on a mission to transform agriculture. Retrieved from http://aerofarms.com

12. Matsutani, M. (2014, May 13). Fujitsu harvests low-potassium lettuce grown in semiconductor plant. The Japan Times. Retrieved from http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/05/13/national/science-health/fujitsu-harvests-low-potassium-lettuce-grown-plant-clean-room/

13. Krishnamurthy, R. (2014, July 25). Vertical farming: Singapore’s solution to feed the local urban population. The Permaculture Research Institute. Retrieved from https://permaculturenews.org /2014/07/25/vertical-farming-singapores-solution-feed-local-urban-population/

14. Growtainer (2017). The portable production facility of the future. Growtainer. Retrieved from http://www.growtainers.com

15. Kneafsey, M., Venn, L., Schmutz, U., Balázs, B., Trenchard, L., Eyden-Wood, T., … and Blackett, M. (2013). Short food supply chains and local food systems in the EU. A state of play of their socio-economic characteristics. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports. Joint Research Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, European Commission.

16. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs (2017). Local Food Report 2016. Retrieved from http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/about/local_food_rpt16.htm#2015

17.Crunchbase (n.d.). AeroFarms. Retrieved from https://www.crunchbase.  com/organization/aerofarms

18. See AeroFarms, 2017.

19. Chang, J. (2014). An analysis of Chinese buzzwords in the snake’s year. Journal of Arts and Humanities, 3(2), pp. 78.­

Skills and Knowledge: An Imperative for Lifelong Learning in the Digital Age

By Bitange Ndemo

Today’s fast-paced and ever-changing world requires societies to adopt a culture of life-long learning. There is much the countries of the Global South can do to close the technology gap between them and the Global North, and capitalise on the many opportunities to empower people to be fit and ready for our future economies.

 

 “The capacity to learn is a gift; the ability to learn is a skill; the willingness to learn is a choice.” – Brian Herbert

 

Introduction

Never in the history of mankind has lifelong learning been such an imperative to sustain economic growth as it is in today’s digital age. The pace of technological change, at least since the invention of the Internet, has been phenomenal and few studies have attempted to capture its disruptive path and how best to adapt to it.

In the past, inventions took much longer to become obsolete. It took more than a century to imagine the demise of the internal combustion engine. Similarly, a child who was born at the dawn of the twenty-first century could hardly identify a rotary phone, which was a common household item barely two decades ago.

In 1965, Intel Co-Founder Gordon Moore predicted that the number of components per integrated circuit would double every 18 to 24 months for at least two decades. To date, this prediction has remained true far beyond the two decades he predicted. These types of improvements have disrupted industries. For example, in a short period of time, digital cameras replaced the film cameras that had been used for over a century. It is for this reason that digital advances are strongly linked to Moore’s prediction, including: quality-adjusted microprocessors,2 sensors, memory capacity, and even the number and size of pixels in digital cameras.3

Jobs have also been disrupted. The World Economic Forum’s Human Capital Index Report 2016 notes that there are jobs today that did not exist 10 years ago. It predicts that at least “65% of children entering primary school today will ultimately end up working in completely new job types that aren’t on our radar yet”.4 Further, the report predicts that the “pace of change is only going to get faster”, owing to rapid advances in such technologies as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, machine learning, the Internet of Things, sensor technologies, and more.

The Capacity to Learn

Despite an individual’s particular areas of knowledge and skills, it is impossible to know what kinds of knowledge will be required to utilise the new technologies that await us in the future.

A key question for policy makers is thus: How do we prepare today’s school children for future jobs that we cannot fully predict and understand? One thing we can be certain about is that in order to acquire the skills and knowledge needed for these unknown future jobs, children must have the capacity to learn.

The “capacity to learn” is far too often an ambiguous concept. Perhaps the closest definition for it can be found in a 1998 quote by Seymour Papert, where he said, “All skills will become obsolete except one, the skill of being able to make the right response to situations that are outside the scope of what you were taught in school. We need to produce people who know how to act when they are faced with situations for which they were not specifically prepared.”

Perhaps in the past, the ability to do something well by using one’s own knowledge, experience, and aptitude could guarantee a lifetime of earnings, but rapid technological advances have changed that narrative.

Enhancing the capacity to learn is a complex process. Wald and Castleberry (2000) suggest that it should be collaborative, considering that learning demands that learners have an understanding of “themselves, their motives, and their thoughts and beliefs, as well as the motives, thoughts, and beliefs of others”.5 According to this view, the capacity to learn demands that individual interests be merged into collective aspirations. An individual cannot acquire the capacity to learn in isolation since society prepares young people to acquire knowledge. Thus it compels society members to have a sense of behaviour that creates a relationship of “trust, belonging, and purposefulness” that is often referred to as “work ethic”. This begins early in life so as to enable an individual to do sensible things while acquiring the necessary knowledge and skills with or without going through formal educational systems.

 

Acquiring the Right Skills

Perhaps in the past, the ability to do something well by using one’s own knowledge, experience, and aptitude could guarantee a lifetime of earnings, but rapid technological advances have changed that narrative. In the last couple of decades, it is common for an individual to acquire and reacquire different skill sets within a short time period. Therefore, the notion of permanent skills does not exist; rather, to be relevant for future jobs, one must embrace a continuous process of acquiring new, relevant skills. For this, society must embrace a culture of lifelong learning and collaboration, accepting that there is truth in Brian Herbert’s line that “the willingness to learn is a choice”.6

 

Knowledge for the Future

Knowledge can be described as the state of being aware, through either experience or education. Studies highlight the key knowledge areas of interest that new pedagogy must embrace to enhance understanding and readiness for future requirements (see Figure 1, below).7 These include: 1) foundational knowledge that incorporates digital literacy and core content, and is cross disciplinary; 2) humanistic knowledge that covers life/job skills, ethical/emotional awareness, and cultural competence, and 3) meta knowledge that focusses on creativity and innovation, problem solving, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration.

 

Figure 1: Key Knowledge Areas for Future Requirements

Source: Kereluik, Mishra, Fahnoe, and Terry (2013) What Knowledge Is of Most Worth: Teacher Knowledge for 21st Century Learning. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education (p. 128). © punyamishra.com 2013

These critical areas have been tested in some private schools in Kenya; however, public schools, especially those in developing countries, still lag as they are typically more rigidly focussed on foundational knowledge. Often public educational systems face funding constraints and over full class rooms and as a result, devote little dedication to developing the skills future workers will need.

 

Policy Failure and Future Concerns for the Global South

Although policy makers everywhere should ensure that the right enabling environment is in place to enhance the capacity to learn and to develop futuristic skills and knowledge, several countries lag behind rich Northern ones, especially in those in the Global South. These countries lack a clear direction on how to close the North – South technology gap, a gap that cannot close until an enabling infrastructure is in place. For example, until 2009, Africa had no high-speed connectivity (see Figure 2). Virtually all countries accessed the Internet through expensive satellite links, which few people could afford. Today, the Internet has become a human-rights issue and a platform to enable lifelong learning. Kereluik et al.’s (2013) model suggests that digital literacy be part of the foundational knowledge for future of learning. Some African countries have embraced this need.

 

Figure 2: Africa’s Changing Connectivity, 2009 to 2012

Source: Oxford Internet Institute

Ndemo (2015) argued that clear and simple policy interventions did, indeed, make the difference in Kenya, where Internet penetration soared from barely 5 percent, in 2009, to 81 percent, in 2017.8 In the process, the country now has the highest number of mobile-money customers, and several apps have been developed to improve productivity in education, agriculture, healthcare, and several other sectors. Key areas of policy intervention have included building comprehensive infrastructures from both undersea cables and terrestrial networks; giving incentives to students to acquire enabling devices (for assistive technology); subsidising broadband for all institutions of higher learning (public and private; the removal of taxes on enabling devices; the certification of operators to develop last-mile infrastructure in rural areas; and the creation of digital centres in rural areas. Although it took some three years before there was widespread use of broadband, the results have been so phenomenal that, in some areas, the economy is leveraging on emerging technologies, such as big data, the Internet of Things, artificial intelligence, and machine learning, so as to offer some of these new and inclusive products.

 

Lifelong Learning Mediated by Technology

In Ireland, lifelong learning has been a governing principle of educational policy since 2000. In Learning for life: White paper on adult education, by the Department of Education and Science, lifelong learning is defined as “ongoing, voluntary, and self-motivated”.9 While this policy document addresses adult education, the uncertain future of work means that one’s ability to constantly learn new skills and remain relevant in the job market is paramount.

The uncertain future of work means that one’s ability to constantly learn new skills and remain relevant in the job market is paramount.

The World Economic Forum’s Human Capital Index Report 2016 estimates that 65% of the children who are entering primary school today will ultimately end up working in completely new job types that, as yet, do not exist.10 This means that no specific skills exist that can prepare them for their future work. To fit into these non-existent jobs, these children will have to re-train, perhaps several times over, as the job landscape evolves.

It may not be possible to develop lifelong learning, for different people, without the use of information and communications technologies (ICTs). Stolterman and Croon Fors (2004) described our current situation as “the total and overall societal effect of digitalisation”.11 This interconnectedness and collaboration of people and organisations is being applied in every aspect of life, and education is no exception. Therefore, the future of learning will largely be facilitated by technology. Further, policy makers will have to create an enabling environment that meets these future demands, such as through lifelong learning.

 

Policy Recommendations

Evidence suggests that policy is key to the realisation of an enabling environment that supports the type of learning that is necessary for the future of work.12 This would include making broadband accessible and affordable to all, especially in the Global South. Lifelong learning that is mediated by technologies such as applications or “apps” will make it possible to minimise the cost of leaning materials and their delivery. As such, governments should consider removing or at least reducing taxes and duties on facilitating devices and systems, such as laptops, smart phones, and Internet usage. In order to leave no one behind, there is need for digital literacy training programmes, both in schools and in rural villages.

 

Future Research

The world is in a transformative stage, where new disruptive technologies are emerging almost on a daily basis. Some of these technologies will have far-reaching implications in the world we live in. Big data is already enabling nations to visualise the extent of such problems as poverty in ways we have never seen, and several inclusive products have emerged. Thanks to big data analytics, more people are gaining access to the types of finance and banking facilities that were hitherto not available to them. Future research should focus on the implications of the technologies that underpin digital transformation. These include but are not limited to artificial intelligence; the Internet of Things; machine learning, and other innovations, such as sensors and nanotechnology.

 

Conclusion

The future of work is uncertain yet inevitable and so too is the need for our constant learning and adapting. Strategies that will help us to successfully find and maintain employment include creating an enabling environment that encourages a culture of lifelong learning. The Global South should strive to close the digital divide between it and the rich Northern hemisphere. To this end, we must embrace David Miliband’s 2003 quote, “One of the core functions of 21st century education is learning to learn in preparation for a lifetime of change.”13

 

About the Author

Bitange Ndemo is an Associate Professor of Entrepreneurship at the University of Nairobi’s Business School. Prof. Ndemo is an advisor and Board member to several organisations including Safaricom one of the leading telecommunication company in Africa, Mpesa Foundation, Research ICT Africa that is based in South Africa. He is a former Permanent Secretary of Kenya’s Ministry of Information and Communication where he was credited with facilitating many transformative ICT projects.

 

Notes

1. Herbert, Brian and Anderson, K. (2001). House Harkonnen. Spectra Books: New York.
2. Myhrvold, Nathan (June 7, 2006). “Moore’s Law Corollary: Pixel Power”. New York Times.
3. Byrne, David M.; Oliner, Stephen D.; Sichel, Daniel E. (March 2013). Is the Information Technology Revolution Over? Finance and Economics Discussion Series Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs Federal Reserve Board. Washington, D.C.
4. World Economic Forum Human Capital Index Report (June 2016) Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 1-2 June 2016.
5. Wald, P.J., and Castleberry, M.S. (2000). Educators as learners: Creating a professional learning community in your school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
6. See for example Bell, S., (2010) Project-Based Learning for the 21st Century: Skills for the Future. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, v83 n2 p39-43.
7. Kereluik, K., Mishra, P., Fahnoe C., and Terry, L., (2013) What Knowledge Is of Most Worth: Teacher Knowledge for 21st Century Learning. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education 29:4, 127-140, DOI: 10.1080/21532974.2013.10784716.
8. Ndemo, E B (2015) Political Entrepreneurialism: Reflections of a Civil Servant on the Role of Political Institutions in Technology Innovation and Diffusion in Kenya. Stability: International Journal of Security and Development 4(1):15, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/sta.fd.
9. Department of Education and Science (2000). Learning for Life: Paper on Adult Education. Dublin: Stationery Office.
10.World Economic Forum Human Capital Index Report (June 2016) Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 1-2 June 2016.
11. Stolterman, Erik; Croon Fors, Anna (2004). “Information Technology and the Good Life.” Information systems research: relevant theory and informed practice. p. 689.
12. See for example Ndemo, E B (2015) Political Entrepreneurialism: Reflections of a Civil Servant on the Role of Political Institutions in Technology Innovation and Diffusion in Kenya. Stability: International Journal of Security and Development 4(1):15, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/sta.fd.
13. David Miliband 2003 Speech Teaching in the 21st century.

How to Make Finance a Force for Sustainability

Golden coins with solar panels and nuclear power plant on a background.

By Dirk Schoenmaker

Traditional finance focusses on financial return, considering the financial sector separate from both society and the environment. In contrast, sustainable finance considers financial, social and environmental returns in combination. In a new essay, I provide a framework for sustainable finance highlighting the move from the narrow shareholder model to a broader stakeholder model. Here he presents the key arguments.

Sustainable development is a holistic concept with three aspects: economic, social and environmental. Humanity is facing numerous sustainability challenges. Looking at the environment, we see climate change, land-use change, biodiversity loss and depletion of natural resources all destabilising the earth. And on the social front, poverty, hunger and a lack of health care reveal that many people live below basic social standards.

Sustainable development means that current and future generations should have the resources they need, such as food, water, health care and energy, without overwhelming the earth’s natural processes. To guide the transformation towards a sustainable and inclusive economy, the United Nations has developed the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which will require behavioural change.

Why should finance contribute to sustainable development? The main task of the financial system is to allocate funding to its most productive use, but a shift to sustainability means changing our ideas about what is “productive”. Finance can play a role in allocating investment to sustainable companies and projects and thus accelerate the transition to a low-carbon, inclusive and circular economy. So sustainable finance considers how finance (investing and lending) interacts with economic, social and environmental issues.

In this allocation role, finance can assist in strategic decisions on the trade-offs between sustainable goals. Moreover, investors can exert influence over the companies they invest in, so long-term investors can steer companies towards sustainable business practices. Finally, finance is good at pricing risk for valuation purposes, and can thus help to deal with the inherent uncertainty about environmental issues, such as the impact of carbon emissions on climate change. At their core both finance and sustainability look to the future, so there is scope for a new alignment.

A New Framework

Thinking about sustainable finance has gone through different stages over the last few decades (see Table 1). The focus is gradually shifting from short-term profit towards long-term value creation. In a new essay, I analyse these stages and provide a new framework for sustainable finance.

Financial and non-financial firms traditionally adopt the shareholder model, with profit maximisation as the main goal. A first step in sustainable finance (1.0 in Table 1) would be for financial institutions to avoid investing in companies with very negative impacts, such as tobacco, cluster bombs or whale hunting. Indeed, some firms are starting to include social and environmental considerations in the stakeholder model (Sustainable Finance 2.0).

Table 1: Framework for Sustainable Finance

Note: F = financial value; S = social impact; E = environmental impact; T = total value. At Sustainable Finance 1.0, the maximisation of F is subject to minor S and E constraints.

But to move ahead, we need to adopt a stakeholder approach to finance, with benefits accruing to the wider community rather than just shareholders. In the essay, I highlight the tension between the shareholder and stakeholder models. Should policymakers allow a shareholder-oriented firm to take over a stakeholder-oriented firm? Or do we need to protect firms that are more advanced in terms of sustainability? Another key development is the move from risk to opportunity. While financial firms have started to avoid (very) unsustainable companies from a risk perspective (Sustainable Finance 1.0 and 2.0), the frontrunners are now increasingly investing in sustainable companies and projects to create long-term value for the wider community (Sustainable Finance 3.0).

Mobilising Investment Funds for The Long Term

One major obstacle to the adoption of sustainable finance is short-termism. The costs of action are borne now, while the benefits are in the future. The impact of economic activity on society, and even more so on the environment, is typically felt in the long term. So how can financial institutions commit their investment for the long term and steer business towards sustainable practices?

One major obstacle to the adoption of sustainable finance is short-termism. The costs of action are borne now, while the benefits are in the future.

In the essay, I make two concrete proposals. On the institutional front, I propose to introduce “loyalty shares” as an additional reward to shareholders if they have held on to their shares for a so-called loyalty period (for example three, five or ten years). The idea is very simple. Only investors, which have owned the shares over this objective time period of three, five or ten years with a clear starting and end date, get the extra loyalty shares. These loyalty shares are an incentive for institutional investors to pursue a buy-and-hold strategy. A major benefit of incentivising investors to hold onto their shares for the long-term is that it facilitates engagement of (institutional) investors with companies in which they invest. This engagement on environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues is a powerful force to steer companies towards sustainable business practices. Social and environmental externalities take place in the corporate sector, but the financial sector can pressure corporates to address these externalities effectively.

On the investment side, I propose the creation of sustainable retail investment funds. Currently, the main vehicles for retail investors are Undertakings for Collective Investments in Transferable Securities (UCITS). UCITS are collective investment funds operating freely throughout the European Union on the basis of a single authorisation. The UCITS concept includes a transferability requirement, which assumes securities are listed on liquid markets. However, this discourages long-term commitment by investors. While liquidity is useful for retail investors, I suggest that this strict transferability requirement be revised into a concept of “liquidity that ensures a balanced control of in- and outflow of cash by fund managers”. This could be combined with a withdrawal limit on fund shares.

As part of their sustainability agenda, the European Commission should prepare legislation setting up liquid, sustainable retail investment funds or undertakings with an EU-passport. These new “Undertakings for Collective Investments in Sustainable Securities” (UCISS) would replace the requirements on listing and transferability with the concept of sound liquidity management. UCISS would also incorporate a definition of eligible investments meeting enforceable sustainability criteria. The UN Sustainable Development Goals could underpin these criteria.

About the Author

Dirk Schoenmaker is  a Senior Fellow at Bruegel and a Professor of Banking and Finance at the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University. He is author of “Investing for the Common Good: A Sustainable Finance Framework”, Bruegel Essay and Lecture Series, Brussels.The essay can be downloaded at: http://bruegel.org/2017/07/investing-for-the-common-good-a-sustainable-finance-framework/

EDITOR'S PICK OF THE WEEK

CFO's new mandate. CFO explaining the presentation

The Performance and Transformation Orchestrator: The CFO’s New Mandate in the Age of AI

By Terence Tse CFOs are evolving into AI-driven transformation orchestrators, balancing finance, technology, and strategy while upskilling teams, managing risks, and driving measurable business value. A key insight from this year’s AI for CFOs event, organized...

WISE DECISION MAKER GUIDE

POWER INFLUENCERS

Emerging Trends

The Future of Global Trade