Inflation, QE – Lemonade Economy, Government & Central Bank

One of the prominent themes in fintwit these days is inflation and QE (quantitate easing). In this blog, I am capturing my understanding on the topic in (hopefully) simpler terms.

Lemonade Economy

Before we get to inflation, let us try to understand economy through a simple thought experiment.

Lets say, one fine day I get an idea to sell Lemonade in the evenings at a public park new my home. I put in my own money to buy a stand, lemons and equipment needed to make lemonade. This business proves profitable because there are lot of kids who play in this park and they pester their parents for lemonade. It wont be long before I decide to expand this business to two other parks in my neighborhood.

As good as this idea is, it has some limitations. One, I need more capital and two, I cannot be in multiple parks at same time. So I approach a bank and show them my business plan and take a loan. With this money, I buy equipment and supplies needed for additional parks. But, I still did not solve the second problem. How can I be in multiple places at same time? For this I start employing people to run this business in other parks. My business takes off with very good cash flows.

Watching this success, a new entrepreneur decides to put a competing business by selling sugar cane juice in same parks. They go through same process of borrowing from bank, employing people and setting up juice stands. This soon becomes a small economy with money primarily powered by spending.

  1. Parents (buyers) of kids spend their excess cash for refreshments passing money to entrepreneurs.
  2. Entrepreneurs expand their business through leverage (fancy word for borrowed money), receive money from buyers.
  3. Bank lends money to entrepreneurs and collects interest payments.
  4. Employees receive money from employers.
  5. Suppliers of equipment (lemons, sugar cane, stands) get more revenue for their business.

Important piece to notice here is the total money in this economy has not changed. It just moved from one entity to another. One entity’s spending becomes another one’s income. If the total money in the economy is represented by a pie, the percentage share of each entity has changed.

One of the differences between this hypothetical economy and real world is absence of two critical entities – Government & Central Banks. Let us go through their roles next.

Government

In any society in today’s world, government plays a fundamental pillar which keeps the society intact. Its responsibilities are wide ranging like judicial system for basic safety or well being of society, infrastructure – like roads, parks etc, retirement benefits, military expenses etc.

One side affect of these roles is that it also creates employment to people and hence helps economy engine flowing through deployment of money. Government gets this money primarily through taxes (both on income, trade and other forms). In a happy equilibrium government has enough income to fund its expenditures. But sometimes government need more money than it needs. Let’s say to fund a huger rail system construction which needs capital upfront. Or a far less desirable reason – wars.

Just like entrepreneurs in our example government has to resort to borrowing money. This borrowing can be done in multiple ways. Two popular ways are:

  1. Issuing bonds (which is a promise to payback later)
  2. Using Quantitate Easing

Issuing Bonds

In this method, government can simply issue a contract – which requests for some amount money with a promise to payback in some number of years with a certain interest rate. Government can they shop this around to lenders. In United states these are referred to as Treasury securities. Lenders could be anyone – an investor looking for a safe way to invest this money or a foreign government who has excess income and wanting to invest. It is important for government to use both forms.

Borrowing always from lenders in country is not feasible. Also, it doesn’t get new capital in the country. Rather, it just moves total money in the country around. On the other hand, borrowing from other nations and foreign investors creates additional influx of money. This could help power the economy, increase productivity, generate more goods and potentially export them, thus generating more money inflow.

If governments are not careful in their spending, soon this could lead to irrecoverable spiral. For ex unexpected costs like wars or change in tax policies or pandemic will lead to more borrowing. Over a period of time, government’s balance sheet becomes lop sided and with it its ability to repay accrued debt soon vanishes. This can lead to lack of enough lenders to fund additional debt to run the government. At this point, governments have to resort to another mode of funding – Quantitive Easing.

Quantitave EASING

Before discussing this, we need to introduce another entity economic system – Central Banks. Central banks (Federal Reserve in USA) is the sole authority that manages monetary policy in a country. Among other things, one major responsibility that it fulfills is managing production of money in the country. In other words, it prints the money.

One form of quantitative easing occurs when government issues more bonds but instead of selling to investors, it sells it to Central bank. Where does central bank get this money? It just prints it. This transaction doesn’t occur in such straightforward way. It is done through intermediaries. But what matters is, at the end these bonds appear in balance sheet of Central bank and government gets the money it needs. So government can get to spend more money without extracting it from investors or foreign lending. This in itself should cause a drop in value of each individual unit of money.

For example, before printing new money if there are total 100 notes in circulation and total value of those 100 notes is 100000. Then each note is worth 1000. But if you suddenly have 110 notes in circulation but total value of goods and services in country hasn’t changed. Then each note is worth 100000/110 = 909.90.

Astute reader may point out that this is not a problem, if those additional 10 units are distributed evenly to everyone. It is true, but in realty that does not happen. In practice not all of those additional money printed gets sent to people. Instead of some of them is used to cover additional expenses of government (isn’t it why it borrowed in first place?), or to power unemployment benefits during time of recession etc. This means that some people have to take a hit in terms of value lost on the cash they hold.

Apart from this form of QE, there are other times in which Central Bank prints money. For example, Central banks in past have printed money to not just buy Treasuries but to also buy bonds issued by other Corporations. This happened during 2009 financial recession and in the current Covid-19 powered recession.

So, in these cases newly minted money is not sent to common person through government. But rather it is sent into financial markets. This causes asset (stocks) prices to rise which benefits people who have luxury to invest in financial markets. These people will see their net worth raise. These people have more money to spend than they would have had otherwise.

This leads us to our next topic – Inflation.

Inflation

All this new money flooding into the system means there are more dollars chasing same number of goods and services. In a free market this causes rise in the prices. This is referred to as inflation – the reduction in purchasing power of each unit of money.

Government has a mechanism to track this rate of price increase. The official term for this is Consumer Price Index. They take a basket of goods that are usually purchased by households and track the price of this basket over a period of time. This is generally what people mean when they say inflation is 2% or 3%.

But there are some flaws in judging outcome of monetary policies purely through lens of CPI. One of them is that it is managed by government and often items (or their proportions) considered in these basket change.

The other is, prices of goods are affected by forces other than money printing. For example in his book – The Price of Tomorrow, Jeff Booth explains how deflationary force of technology causes the prices to go down. Technology and innovation helps us produce goods and services at cheaper price and faster pace. These savings are passed on to consumers causing reduction in prices (deflationary). So, the real downsides from money printing are hidden by these deflationary forces.

Also CPI doesn’t really capture other expenses that are incurred by households. Take College eduction for example. This article by CNBC, cites that college education increased by 25% over last 10yrs. Or this article by Forbes, which says college education rate is growing at faster pace than wages. You will find similar stories for Health care. So while wages increasing at a very marginal rate, these expenses are accelerating.

This puts a massive pressure on majority of population. Education and financial markets are essential ways of upward mobility. Over time it is increasingly difficult for masses to get access to these opportunities, essentially leading to a two class system. No wonder despite a historical bull run in economy over last 10yrs, more and more people feel left out. The system is failing them.

This is very well articulated in this following twitter thread by @PrestonPysh.

Conclusion

No matter where in political spectrum between Capitalism and Socialism one lies, there seems to be enough evidence that current monetary policies and particularly QE seems to have unintended affects. It is driving higher inequality, more polarization, emergence of two class systems and increasing loss of confidence in the fiat monetary system. It is an extremely complex subject which I hope to continue learning about.

References

  1. The Price of Tomorrow – Jeff Booth
  2. Big Debt Crises – Ray Dalio
  3. How The Economic Machine Works by Ray Dalio
  4. Preston Pysh’s Explanation of Inflation
  5. How currency works – howstuffworks.com

Choosing the Right Managerial Style

What is your Managerial Style – Leadership or Management. Coaching or Supporting?

I have deliberated on this question a lot during my career. While the definition of each of them is very well documented, often conversations tend to pitch one against another, which puts newer managers in the uncomfortable spot of picking one vs other and guessing which one is better or worse making wrong choices (it certainly did for me).

Having seen these styles work well and not-so-well in my career (as a manager and a tech lead), I now believe that a good line managers need to adapt and use both techniques. The success of style depends entirely on context and people.

Management

When I say Management, I refer to following operational style:

  • Overseeing goals of a team
  • Being tactical in determining strategy in every step
  • Being Operation thinker who plans execution steps
  • Focusing on objectives
  • Minimizing risk in execution and seeks stability
  • Sometimes Teach by doing

Leadership

At a high level, operating style for “Leadership” is: 

  • Setting vision and directing
  • Influencing & Coaching people through reasoning (explaining “why” we are doing things)
  • Making people feel part of vision and motivating them to creative in execution while still staying on track
  • Being a strategic thinker
  • Optimizing for long term autonomy of the team (some times trading off immediate risks)

There are enough subtle differences between the two styles and often it is not entirely sure what is ideal. In this write up, I try to capture a framework for choosing between the two styles.

Learnings From Mistakes

I made this mistake early in my management career. There was a project that an engineer reporting to me was working on. It involved a lot of cross organizational alignment, planning and execution. I knew this was a steep step up for this engineer. By then through training I received (or let’s say I probably took wrong lessons) I had this idealistic view of a manager leading through coaching than being very tactical and execution focused. 

Before too long, this approach backfired for the team and engineer. Project execution was constantly falling off track despite the best efforts of the lead engineer. There was lack of clarity for everyone involved in schedules, dependencies and what needs to be done when. All this while I was still Coaching the engineer – guiding them through questions, helping them arrive at decisions and figuring out the path of the project. 

So what happened? What the engineer really needed was more hands on support than just coaching. Someone who can help operationalize the project, help in figuring out milestones, how to get alignment on deliverables and timelines across the team. Purely relying on coaching and expecting the engineer to ask the right questions and figure out a path forward, is setting up for failure at that stage of their career.

It’s through experiences like these that I now believe that to be a good Engineering lead (at least as line managers), one has to be able to operate in both styles depending on context and people involved. You need to be able to do any of the following depending on context.

  1. Directing – Setting path, operationalizing, assigning clear deliverables
  2. Supporting – Help in brainstorming, provide feedback proactively, teach by doing if needed
  3. Coaching – Let them make the decisions, provide high level directions, ask probing questions, help with setting decision frameworks
  4. Delegate – Trust and only get involved when asked

Learnings From Mythology

I was recently forwarded a story about two leaders in Hindu mythology and their differing styles. It is very relevant to current topic in this blog. So I modified that slightly here to draw parallels to our subject.

Ramayan and Mahabharata are two epics in Hindu mythology. The centre story of both these books is around victory of good over evil. 

In one story Ram (protagonist) leads his army to defeat Ravana in his land, While in the second Krishna (protagonist) oversees Pandavas defeat Kauravas in the battle at Kurushektra. 

In Ramayan,  Ram is the best warrior of his side. He leads his army from the front. Strategizes & directs different people to do things which will meet the objectives. His people while very skilled are not capable of operational tactics.. Ram sets direction & also tells people what to do during difficult times. Ultimately they won the war & the final outcome was achieved.

On the other hand Krishna told Arjuna (skilled warrior), I won’t fight the battle. I won’t pick up any weapon; I would only be there on our chariot as a charioteer. 

And he did what he said. He never picked up the weapon & he never fought. Still, Pandavas won the war & final outcome was achieved.

What is the difference?

It was their managerial style & It was also the type of people who were being led and situation at hand.

Ram was leading an army of warriors who were not skilled fighters & they were looking for direction. While on other hand, Krishna was leading Arjuna who was one of the best archers of his time. 

While  Ram’s role was to show it & lead from the front, Krishna played the role of a coach whose job was to help clarify doubts, provide general guidance needed for Arjuna to go about his work. 

Krishna couldn’t teach Arjuna archery but he could definitely help him see things from a very different perspective whereas Ram had to use his superior skills and experience in helping guide his warriors across difficult terrains.

So they had to operate in two styles:

Ram- A skilled warrior, was tactical, gave precise roles & instructions (operationalizing the strategy), motivated the army to fight with specific cause in mind. He needed the trust of his warriors to be able to do this. Hint: Management.

Krishna: Arjuna was looking for a coach who provides strategic clarity, explains vision and why it was needed. Krishna did exactly that, he coached Arjuna and allowed the team to take lead, fight for the cause of the team, use his skill and creativity in succeeding. Hint: Leadership

What type do you need to be?

Look at the combination of your team, project and context to reflect what type of role you need to play.

  • One who keeps answering/solving problems for people ? Or Who asks relevant questions from their people so that they can find their own solution?
  • Someone who tells/directs, is tactical and operationalizes the plan?  Or Someone who coaches and sets a path and lets their people find their own ways?
  • Are u someone who has had bright engineers but yet fall through in execution of larger projects? Or do you have an engineer who is an expert who seeks clarity and direction?

Best outcomes are achieved when you put the right hat based on the context.