market

Economic Illiteracy and Stopping Foreclosures

by Alex Schibuola on October 11, 2010 · 1 comment

in Bailout Watch, Economy

Express, a publication of The Washington Post, notes that as a result of a stoppage in mortgage foreclosures: “Prices might stabilize because so many homes are penned up.”

The underlying logic is that:

(1) If there are fewer foreclosures today, then the supply of houses on the market will be reduced.

(2) If supply is reduced, prices will go up (or “stabilize,” i.e., not go down).

Their logic is sound, but they must follow through with the analysis. Yes, the foreclosures are delayed. But we know that they are coming eventually. Therefore in, say a year, we expect prices will decrease once the foreclosure process is re-initiated because those houses then show up on the market.

They [Express] imply that expected future prices are lower than today’s current prices. This won’t do however.

If sellers expect that prices will fall in the future, they will want to sell at today’s relatively higher prices. As a result more people start selling now which increases today’s supply and this brings down today’s prices. This will continue until future prices are equated with today’s prices. Why? Because if expected future prices are low relative to today’s prices more people would like to sell to capture the relatively higher selling prices of today.

A similar effect occurs on the demand side of the market: some potential home buyers expecting prices to fall in a year will wait to buy, until houses become relatively cheaper. Fewer home buyers today mean less demand today, and this entails lower prices today.

The main idea here is that expectations of future prices held by sellers and buyers affects today’s prices, such that future prices and today’s prices move to equality. In this case it means prices go down. The unfortunate take away from this is that the healing period is far from over.

Michael Specter and The danger of market denial

by Fred Smith on April 26, 2010

in Agriculture, Environment, Odds & Ends, Zeitgeist

Michael Specter, a journalist who’s also an excellent speaker, appeared at the last TED conference.  Specter is technologically optimistic but has accepted many of the eco-catastrophe myths.  He favors GMOs, worries about micro-nutrients, says nothing about perfumes or clothes or other status items, makes fun of the organic food movement (sort of) and so on.  Like many modern intellectuals Specter likes technology (or, at least, the right type of technology – the Bright rather than Dark Side of the Force).  And here is the problem – he fails to discuss the institutional framework most appropriate to guide technology in human- friendly directions.   Should innovation be “guided” by markets or by politics?  His condemnation of nutritional supplements would suggest that he’d favor laws banning or taxing the “wrong” consumer choices. 

Specter does not seem to recognize that institutions-not science per se- is the key factor.  He says (in this clip, at least) nothing about the critical link between R and D (he doesn’t really discuss D in any meaningful sense).  No allusion to markets and profits as ways of stimulating innovation.  And, of course, ignores the reality that absent property rights, markets are a grand illusion.

Markets vs. Special Interests

by Ryan Young on October 12, 2009

in Bailout Watch, Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Environment, Global Warming, Healthcare, Insurance, Politics as Usual, Regulation, Stimulus to Nowhere

Detractors of capitalism decry that it caters to special interests. The opposite is actually true. Just look at what’s happened in the last year.

Most of Wall Street came to government asking for a bailout when the government-created housing bubble popped.

The Big Three automakers also went to Washington for largesse when their customers came to prefer Toyotas and Hondas.

Health insurance companies stand to make a killing if Obamacare passes.

T. Boone Pickens and Al Gore would make millions from environmental legislation.

Ludwig von Mises explained the reason for all of this corrupt behavior with a single sentence back in 1949: “It is precisely the fact that the market does not respect vested interests that makes the people concerned ask for government interference.”
-Human Action, 4th Edition, p. 337.

Finding Something to Praise in Obama’s Speech Today

by Iain Murray on September 22, 2009

in Economy, Energy, Environment, Global Warming, International, Regulation, Sanctimony, Stimulus to Nowhere

While this speech is mostly hogwash, I am surprised and delighted to be able to find one thing to praise in it:

Later this week, I will work with my colleagues at the G20 to phase out fossil fuel subsidies so that we can better address our climate challenge

This is the right thing to do, for reasons I explained in my recent paper co-written with Sterling Burnett of NCPA (extract follows jump).

While many governments of developed nations argue for a worldwide reduction in fossil fuel use in order to combat climate change, those same governments also subsidize energy use and production.

In 2001, the countries of the EU-15 (the “old Europe” nations in the European Union) spent $16.77 billion (in 2009 dollars) subsidizing coal and $11.23 billion subsidizing oil and gas.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that developing countries spend around $220 billion annually on subsidies for energy production and consumption, of which $170 billion subsidizes fossil fuels [see Figure I]. Including developed countries, subsidies for energy production and consumption worldwide amount to around $300 billion, the majority of which are for fossil fuels.

Such subsidies reduce energy prices below what the market would set, encouraging greater use and raising emissions levels. Direct subsidies include grants to producers and consumers, government investment in research or infrastructure and preferential loans or tax treatment. Indirect subsidies include trade restrictions, price caps and market regulations that guarantee sales volume and restrict competition.

Many signatories to Kyoto subsidize carbon-based fuel use and production. Such subsidies “tilt the playing field,” discouraging research expenditures by private energy companies in developing alternative energy sources. Producers and consumers of other energy sources then demand subsidies to “level the playing field.” Thus, government intervention causes significant distortions in energy markets.

British Petroleum estimates that countries that subsidize transportation fuel use accounted for 96 percent of the increase in oil demand in 2007.13 Many of them are less-developed nations that subsidize both production and consumption of fuels. The IEA estimates that removing domestic price subsidies in China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Russia, Kazakhstan, South Africa and Venezuela would reduce global energy use 3.5 percent and reduce global CO2 emissions 4.6 percent.

U.S. Energy Subsidies.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) calculates that federal energy subsidies amount to $16 billion annually [see Table II]:

In 2007, the federal government spent approximately $5.5 billion on subsidies for the coal, oil and natural gas industries— principally tax breaks for investment — including $3 billion for coal and natural gas, and more than $2 billion for research and development of clean-coal technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from coal.

The government spent an additional $1.2 billion for electricity production and use (not fuel specific), and $2.8 billion to increase the energy efficiency of homes and businesses.

It spent an additional $5 billion for renewable energy production and use, mostly in the form of tax breaks.

Finally, $1.2 billion went to the nuclear industry.

The EIA found that subsidies doubled from 1999 to 2007, due mainly to expanded subsidies for renewable energy and clean-coal technology.

Policy Recommendations. There are a number of neutral energy policies that could be implemented at the national or international level to reduce subsidized production and use:

International trade talks should include eliminating subsidies for fossil fuel production and consumption.

National budgets should be reviewed with the goal of eliminating programs that encourage energy use.

Subsidies and tax breaks, or tax penalties, for specific energy technologies should be eliminated to remove price distortions in energy markets.

A neutral energy tax policy, for example, would include replacing the federal tax-depreciation schedule for investment in new capital stock with immediate expensing. New equipment almost always produces fewer emissions per unit of output than older equipment.

Changing the depreciation schedule so that new investments could be written off immediately would make it profitable to replace old equipment at a much quicker pace. This simple change could do more to increase energy efficiency throughout the economy than the current complicated expensing regime.

Unfortunately, given the President’s praise for loan guarantees and tax credits elsewhere in the speech, he is failing to pursue a neutral energy tax policy, but I’ll give him due credit for at least addressing half of the market distortion.

Thank You, 2008, and Good Riddance!

by Iain Murray on December 31, 2008 · 22 comments

in Bailout Watch, Culture, Economy, Energy, Environment, Features, Global Warming, Politics as Usual, Zeitgeist

For supporters of freedom and markets, the Year of Our Lord 2008 has been close to a disaster. As D:Ream used to sing, things can only get better, surely? Ah, if only…

This was the year that saw two Presidential candidates vying with each other to see who could make the most ridiculous statements on global warming and the financial system (it may be the less ridiculous won). It was a year when one bunch of free-spending economic know-nothings gained complete control of Congress over another bunch of free-spending economic know-nothings. This was the year the American polity compromised and became both stupid and evil.

2008 was a year when America lost its mind over energy. As energy prices spiked thanks to (as we now know) artificially inflated demand, politicians mostly discussed ways to make them higher still. No energy idea was too stupid for someone to be praised as a genius or visionary for proposing it. Oil companies fell over themselves to make adverts telling people not to use their main product. Congress told American car makers they weren’t making the cars people wanted to buy, so they were going to make them do it or fine them into closure. Car makers responded by demanding money from the taxpayer. Congress agreed. The invisible hand was thereby nailed to a Congressional table. For one brief, shining moment, it looked like even this Congress would be forced to relax idiotic restrictions on oil exploration, but “Drill, baby, drill” was retired as the oil price collapsed and so we will have to go through the whole thing again on the next oil price spike, when we will be told it is too late to explore and drill (again).

This was the year when every energy-snake-oil salesman realized that “green jobs” was the magic phrase that unlocked taxpayer wallets. A vast army of careers in the compact-light-bulb-changing industry awaits America’s youth. The progression from trainee light-bulb-changer to assistant-light-bulb-changer to certified-light-bulb-changer to lightbulb-changing-supervisor to lightbulb-changing-regional-manager to lightbulb-changing-firm-CEO to lightbulb-changing-Czar will tempt the most ambitious young people (even if most of the actual changing will be done by recent immigrants from Mexico). The 500,000 extra unemployed as a result of the “green jobs” scam will at least be able to pat themselves on the back that, by losing their jobs, they have reduced global emissions infinitesimally.

2008 was the year when the housing-market-of-cards erected on the shifting sands of decades of congressional and administration pressure to lend fell down spectacularly. The market that had reacted to government signals got all the blame, when it only deserved some of it. The guilty parties in Washington not only got away scott free, but are now writing the rules for another iteration of the manifestly-failed Mixed Economy. As for a free market in finance, that has been completely ruled out even though it’s never actually been tried.

This Annus Horribilis also saw the rise of Bailout Nation. With asset values collapsed, the investors who had speculated and lost knew they had one way to keep their pockets full – by getting their cronies in the Administration and Congress to take money out of the pockets of taxpayers and give it to them. A Congress full of people supposedly friendly to the middle class agreed. Trebles and bonuses all round! With Wall Street the most despised thoroughfare in America, one Wall Street Panhandler masquerading as a Treasury Secretary is to be replaced by another. That’s change I can believe in.

In my native Britain, the 55th year of the Queen’s reign saw the Conservative Party reap the rewards of acquiescing to New Labour’s mixed-economy economic policy. When British banks collapsed, and a sterling crisis deepened the trouble, they were left with nothing to say. Gordon Brown, the man who promised he had put an end to “boom and bust,” blamed the bust that followed his housing boom on America and Margaret Thatcher and thereby managed to improve his opinion poll rating to the level where people were speculating he might call a General Election. The British voter, after all, knows he is a safe pair of hands with the economy. At least some over there, however, know what the real story is.

As 2008 draws to a close it has proven to be the coldest year in a decade and it seems that tropospheric temperatures are beginning a downward cycle again. Never, however, has the political establishment been so united in deciding that urgent action is needed to save us from ever-rising temperatures.

2008, you were a rotten year. No-one likes you. Go away!

Last-minute push for Colombia trade pact

by Fran Smith on November 12, 2008

in International, Trade

Major newspapers around the country including the Washington Post, the LA Times, and the Wall Street Journal are urging President-elect Barack Obama to pass the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement in the lame duck session. The Los Angeles Times said it bluntly, “It’s time to stop playing games with a trade pact whose economic and political benefits are good for both nations.”

Some reports of the meeting between the president-elect and President Bush said that the president had pushed for the trade agreement in exchange for support of the auto loan package, but that was denied.

CEI has strongly supported the passage of this agreement based on its own merits — it provides surety for continued liberalized trade for Colombia, it opens up Colombian markets to U.S. goods without high tariffs, and it helps cement the close relationship with a Latin American ally besieged by leftist neighboring governments.

Stock Market Selloff?

by Ryan Young on October 28, 2008 · 1 comment

in Economy

Following the economy, especially lately, can be confusing. Reporters are not helping matters.

A CNN.com article, for example, blames yesterday’s stock market plunge on a selloff.

But there was no selloff; every seller requires a buyer.

Just as more people were selling, so were more people buying. Describing yesterday’s market as a selloff only tells half the story.

The same article says that today’s 600-point gain happened when “investors scooped up a variety of shares.” But those buyers cannot buy unless somebody sells to them. Again, the article only tells half the story. And here is one case where two halves do not a whole make.

So what really happened yesterday and today? High trading volume. That may not sound very exciting. But at least it’s accurate.

Flaws and all, the article can still teach us an important lesson, if only we let it: sometimes financial reporters don’t know what they’re talking about.

Don’t believe everything you read, in other words.

Something to keep in mind while trying to make sense of these troubled times.

FCC Might Actually Roll Back an Outdated Regulation!

by Ryan Radia on October 15, 2008 · 1 comment

in Tech & Telecom

If you wanted to communicate over long distances in real-time 25 years ago, you had little choice but to rely on your local phone company for carriage. Email and mobile phones were still oddities, and neither SMS text messages nor tweets had even been conceived.

Federal regulators, concerned that some companies might not maintain a  high level of service, imposed reporting requirements so the FCC could monitor phone companies and ensure calls were being handled properly.

Fast forward to 2008, and the traditional phone company is but one of numerous firms providing voice and data services to consumers. From cable digital voice to cell phones to free, IP-based applications like Skype, there are a growing number of ways to talk to people in another part of the country. Yet federal regulators have continued enforcing strict reporting requirements on phone companies, forcing these firms to spend countless man-hours filling out forms that some Washington bureaucrat may one day glance over. And these FCC rules apply exclusively to phone companies, putting them at an unfair advantage simply because they happen to be older and more well-established.

As we’ve discussed many times before, the FCC’s paperwork-intensive service quality reporting rules impose millions of dollars in compliance costs on phone companies. These costs are passed on to customers, resulting in higher prices without any actual benefit.

The FCC’s service quality reporting requirements needlessly duplicate the function of a competitive marketplace. How could a phone company get away with subpar service without losing customers to superior competitors? Market discipline-not federal regulation-is ultimately what pushes telecom firms strive for high quality service.

Fortunately, in a notice published today in the Federal Register, the FCC describes its plans to provide regulatory relief to AT&T and Verizon, among others. This needed reform will help reduce unneeded regulations, possibly translating into more competitive offerings from telephone companies.

Of course, the Federal Register is loaded with myriad regulations that, collectively, cost Americans well over $1 trillion dollars per year (as CEI catalogues in its annual publication, Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State). The FCC’s decision to relieve telcos of reporting rules is a welcome move, but we have a long way to go before the regulatory leviathan is in check.

CDS’s House of Cards

by Julie Walsh on October 1, 2008

in Bailout Watch, Economy

It’s been called a ticking time bomb by Investor’s Business Daily. CNNMoney asks if this will be the next disaster. Yet the Feds are delaying one key in bringing stability to our financial markets.

As a $62 trillion dollar over the counter market, CDSs need an exchange or central clearinghouse to provide transparency and collateral requirements. CME (formed from the Chicago Board of Trade and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange) and the Clearing Corp (formed from 17 financial players including UBS and Goldman Sachs) have stepped up to the plate. Clearing Corp could have had a clearinghouse up and running within a week or so; however, the Fed has pushed Clearinghouse to obtain a banking license which will probably delay its opening until next year. But with each bank that is removed from this house of cards the threat of meltdown is increased. The banks are falling one after another internationally, and with the CDSs so intertwined, its only a matter of time until when you take away one more card and they all fall.

According to Bloomberg, “Barclays analysts estimated in February that if a financial institution that had $2 trillion in credit-default swap trades outstanding were to fail, it might trigger between $36 billion and $47 billion in losses for those that traded with the firm. That doesn’t include the market-value losses investors face as the cost to protect companies against a default widens.”

Perhaps it would be a good idea for the Feds to speed their approval process?

Bailout fails — Move on to Mark-to-Market Reform

by John Berlau on September 29, 2008 · 13 comments

in Bailout Watch, Economy

Oh, Happy Day! And it certainly is for all those who value freedom, responsibility and the true free market in which individuals are free to profit from their risks on the condition that they don’t stick the rest of us with their losses.

It’s not hyperbole to say the Republican and Democratic backbenchers who defied both parties’ leadership to defeat this $700 billion package of Wall Street socialism literally saved America. Whatever their reasons, this defeat (or rather victory for freedom), means that America is much less likely to turn into France, Venezuela, or the old Soviet Union, as this bailout/nationalization package would have set us on the road to becoming.

Several great speeches on the Right and Left were given. Democrats Brad Sherman of California and Earl Blumenauer of Oregon gave powerful speeches against corporate giveaways. And conservative leaders of the Republican Study Committee — such as Jeb Hensarling, Jeff Flake, Mike Pence, and of course Ron Paul — spoke about how government intervention was largely the cause of this predicament, but the bailout would doom arguments for the free market form here on out. The idea of the government making this kind of outlay to high-flying risk takers just didn’t jibe with members, and certainly not with the American people.

[click to continue…]

← Previous Entries