Monday, October 20, 2008

Life in the Blogosphere: The Feedback Can Be Instant, Personal, Emotionally Unstable, and Brutal

Some excerpts from the article "Why I Blog" by Andrew Sullivan in the new issue of The Atlantic:

A reporter can wait—must wait—until every source has confirmed. A novelist can spend months or years before committing words to the world. For bloggers, the deadline is always now. Blogging is therefore to writing what extreme sports are to athletics: more free-form, more accident-prone, less formal, more alive. It is, in many ways, writing out loud.

It was obvious from the start that it was revolutionary. Every writer since the printing press has longed for a means to publish himself and reach—instantly—any reader on Earth.

Within minutes of my posting something, even in the earliest days, readers responded. E-mail seemed to unleash their inner beast. They were more brutal than any editor, more persnickety than any copy editor, and more emotionally unstable than any colleague.

Again, it’s hard to overrate how different this is. Writers can be sensitive, vain souls, requiring gentle nurturing from editors, and oddly susceptible to the blows delivered by reviewers. They survive, for the most part, but the thinness of their skins is legendary. Moreover, before the blogosphere, reporters and columnists were largely shielded from this kind of direct hazing. Yes, letters to the editor would arrive in due course and subscriptions would be canceled.

But reporters and columnists tended to operate in a relative sanctuary, answerable mainly to their editors, not readers. For a long time, columns were essentially monologues published to applause, muffled murmurs, silence, or a distant heckle. I’d gotten blowback from pieces before—but in an amorphous, time-delayed, distant way. Now the feedback was instant, personal, and brutal.

Some e-mailers, unsurprisingly, know more about a subject than the blogger does. They will send links, stories, and facts, challenging the blogger’s view of the world, sometimes outright refuting it, but more frequently adding context and nuance and complexity to an idea. The role of a blogger is not to defend against this but to embrace it. He is similar in this way to the host of a dinner party. He can provoke discussion or take a position, even passionately, but he also must create an atmosphere in which others want to participate.

For all the intense gloom surrounding the news-paper and magazine business, this is actually a golden era for journalism. The blogosphere has added a whole new idiom to the act of writing and has introduced an entirely new generation to nonfiction. It has enabled writers to write out loud in ways never seen or understood before. And yet it has exposed a hunger and need for traditional writing that, in the age of television’s dominance, had seemed on the wane. Words, of all sorts, have never seemed so now.

Environmental Heresy, Parts I and II

1. Disposable diapers are more green than reusable diapers, according to a recent U.K. report that concluded that disposable diapers have a global warming impact of 550 kg of CO2 over 2.5 years, while reusable diapers produced 570 kg of CO2.

2. The number of climate change skeptics is growing rapidly. Because a funny thing is happening to global temperatures -- they're going down, not up. Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University, says, "It's practically a slam dunk that we are in for about 30 years of global cooling," as the sun enters a particularly inactive phase.

Markets In Everything: Paperless Coupons

Coupons are going paperless. Here's how it works: Electronic coupons are posted online. Shoppers point and click to select the ones they want, and link them with their loyalty cards from their grocery store. When their card is presented at check out, the coupon discounts get applied to the bill.

Cell-phone-based coupons are also gaining some steam. In that model, customers receive the coupon codes on their handsets, which can be used at the checkout for savings.

Thanks to Clover Aguayo.

Colorado and Nebraska Attempt to End State-Sponsored Race and Gender Preferences

While choosing between tickets featuring Barack Obama or Sarah Palin this November, voters in Colorado and Nebraska will also be able to bury the idea that blacks and women in America still need special help to get ahead. In those states, the ballot will carry civil rights initiatives to end race and gender preferences in public hiring and education.

If passing laws to ban discrimination sounds like a triumph for civil rights, you wouldn't know it from the heckling of opponents, who have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep the measures off ballots around the country, using tactics from lawsuits to voter deception to defeat the plans.

Defenders of group-based preferences have long warned that minorities couldn't succeed in a system that doesn't give them special advantages. But far from turning back the clock for African-Americans and women, ending preferences will allow minorities and women to take the full credit for their accomplishments. Barack Obama and Sarah Palin have shown the roads are open.

~Today's Wall Street Journal

From my Detroit Free Press article two years ago when Michigan voted to end racial double-standards here:

President John F. Kennedy said: "Simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races and national origins contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes or results in racial discrimination." Hopefully, Kennedy's vision will prevail this fall when Michigan (and now Colorado and Nebraska) voters have an opportunity to end state-sponsored racial discrimination in college admissions at Michigan (Colorado and Nebraska) public universities.

In 2006 when Michigan voters considered Proposal 2 to end racial and gender preferences, 80 out of 83 Michigan counties voted in favor of ending state-sponsored racial and gender discrimination.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Healthcare Should Not Be Linked To Employment

An end to employer-based health insurance is exactly what the American healthcare market needs. Far from being a calamity, it would represent a giant step toward ending the current system's worst distortions: skyrocketing premiums, lack of insurance portability, widespread ignorance of medical prices, and overconsumption of health services.

With more than 90% of private healthcare plans in the United States obtained through employers, it might seem unnatural to get health insurance any other way. But what's unnatural is the link between healthcare and employment. After all, we don't rely on employers for auto, homeowners, or life insurance. Those policies we buy in an open market, where numerous insurers and agents compete for our business. Health insurance is different only because of an idiosyncrasy in the tax code dating back 60 years - a good example, to quote Milton Friedman, of how one bad government policy leads to another.

De-linking medical insurance from employment is the key to reforming healthcare in the United States.

~From Jeff Jacoby's most recent Boston Globe column

Doom and Gloom? Consider Hedging with Intrade

Has the late unpleasantness got you down? The perfect solution is right in front of you. Use Intrade as a hedge. Using money to offset real hardship is a time-honored trick. Insurance companies rely upon this approach to smooth over all manner of downers and upsets. So if you feel strongly about the election or the financial crisis, why not buy a little insurance of your own?

Hope the economy pulls through? We all do. But if it doesn't, owning a little US.RECESSION.08 will help smooth the rough ride. What better way to counter your own personal recession than a little extra return when it hits?

It doesn't end there. Why not hedge against higher taxes on "Highest Marginal Single-Filer Fed Income Tax Rate to be Equal or Greater than 36% in 2009 Tax Year"? Boy, higher income taxes. That doesn't sound fun. But if it happens, an investment of $41 on 2009.INCOME.TAXRATE.>36% today will be worth $100. You could even invest just enough to cover a tax hike. No, really. Why not?


Gas Prices Approaching $2 Per Gallon in Texas

OPEC Cheats: It Overproduces By 500,000 bpd

The chart above is from the Net Oil Exports blog, and shows the difference between: a) OPEC's official quotas and b) OPEC's typically higher actual production, demonstrating that "OPEC almost always cheats as a group. They over-produce by 500,000 barrels per day (bpd)."

Harvesting Cash: There's Sure No Farm Recession in the U.S., "Big Farm" is Having The Best Year Ever

There's sure no recession in U.S. agriculture - "Big Farm" is doing very, very well this year, according to data from the USDA:

1. Farm income in 2008 ($95.7 billion) is up by almost 64% compared to 2006 ($58.5 billion), see top chart above.

2. Farm real estate has increased in value by 53% during the last four years, from $1.34 trillion in 2004 to more than $2 trillion in 2008, see middle chart above.

3. Farm equity has increased by almost 50% since 2004, to a record $2.147 trillion, see bottom chart above. And the debt to asset ratio for farms is at a five-year low of only 9% (down from 11.3% in 2004), since farmers are carrying only $211 billion in debt on $2.359 trillion of farm assets.

Q1. What's next? "Windfall profits taxes" on Big Farm?

Q2. Does this wealthy group of agribusinesses ("Big Farm") really need taxpayer subsidies?

Quote of the Day

"The bottom of the bear market is where fear and greed come face to face."

~Connie Wright, via regular CD contributor Bob Wright (who commented on this CD post)

Just wondering, wouldn't it also be true that "the top of the bull market is where fear and greed come face to face?"

Saturday, October 18, 2008

The Perfect Storm: Three Trends and a Train Wreck

The three fundamental factors behind the financial crisis have been 1) an enormous growth in wealth that needed to be moved into investments, 2) the greater willingness of both individuals and financial institutions to take on risk, and 3) weak governance and oversight, with a blindness to new forms of systematic risk. All three were needed to bring about the scope of the current mess — so that means we’ve had some very bad luck on top of everything else.

We've already been through a savings and loan crisis, a junk bond crisis and a dot-com bubble, but today’s crisis is by far the worst of the lot — and will probably prove to be more than just a bump in the road. We can do better the next time around, but we have to start by seeing that the current failure is far-reaching and that we can blame many different things and many different people.

The real problem is not some particular villain but rather the very fact that we cannot help but put the evaluation of risk into all-too-human hands.

~Tyler Cowen in today's NYTimes

Friday, October 17, 2008

Quote of the Day

"Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful."

~Warren Buffet

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Falling Gas Prices Over The Last Month Will Save Consumers $156 to $188 Billion Annually

According to the most recent data from the Federal Highway Administration, the total traffic volume over the most recent 12-month period (through July 2008) was 2.944 trillion miles. According to data from the EIA, the average fuel efficiency for all vehicles in 2006 (most recent year reported) was 17.2 miles per gallon. That means that the amount of gasoline required for the traffic volume over the most recent 12-month period was 171,216,860,465 gallons (2.944 trillion miles driven divided by 17.2 miles per gallon).

Therefore, every penny decrease in the price of a gallon of gas would equal more than $1.71 billion in consumer savings over a year (171.216 billions of gallons X $0.01). In that case, the $1.10 per gallon decrease in gas prices from $4.12 in July to $3.02 today (see chart above, data here), would represent annual consumer savings of $188 billion from the fall in gas prices just so far over the last three months (compared to a scenario where gas stayed at $4.12 per gallon).

An alternative calculation is to use the EIA estimate of 390 million gallons consumed per day in the U.S. times 365 days per year, or 142,350,000,000 gallons annually. For each penny decrease in the price of gasoline, consumers would save $1.4235 billion annually according to this approach, and will save $156.6 billion over the next year from the $1.10 per gallon decrease in gas prices since July.

If gas prices continue to fall over the next month (which seems likely), it could be like a $200-$300 billion tax cut for the economy.

Bottom Line: For every one penny decrease in gas prices, consumers save between $1.42 billion and $1.71 billion annually.

US Dollar (v. Major Currencies) Hits 18-Month High

Update: Major currencies index includes the Euro Area, Canada, Japan, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Australia, and Sweden (details here).

Rich Support McCain, Super-Rich Support Obama

More than three quarters of those worth $1 million to $10 million plan to vote for Sen. McCain. Only 15% plan to vote for Sen. Obama (the rest are undecided). Of those worth more than $30 million, two-thirds support Sen. Obama, while one third support Sen. McCain.

The reason? Find out here.

Don't Blame Capitalism: Government Policies Undermined Markets, Promoted Reckless Behavior

Amid the chaos of recent days, as the federal government has taken gargantuan steps to stabilize the financial markets, realigning the U.S. economic system in the process, comes a nearly universal consensus: This crisis resulted from government reluctance to regulate the unbridled greed of Wall Street. Many economists and market participants who were formerly averse to government interference agree that a more robust regulatory framework must be constructed to cage the destructive forces of capitalism.

For the political left, which has long championed the need for such limits, this crisis is the opportunity of a lifetime.

Absent from such conclusions is the central role the government played in creating the crisis. Yes, many Wall Street leaders were irresponsible, and they should pay. But they were playing the distorted hand dealt them by government policies. Our leaders irrationally promoted home-buying, discouraged savings, and recklessly encouraged borrowing and lending, which together undermined our markets.

~Peter Schiff in today's Washington Post

How Did The Dismal Science Become So Popular?

Hundreds of economic blogs have sprung up on the Internet, many written by academics. What gives? How did economics become so popular?

Read more here of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond's article on Economics Blogs, featured in this issue of its publication Region Focus.

HT: Marginal Revolution

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Real Gasoline Prices Fall Below 1981 Levels

According to, the national average price for gas is now $3.05, which is below the previous (to 2008) inflation-adjusted peak price of $3.51 established in March 1981 (historic EIA data here for real gas prices).

Gas Prices Headed for $2 Per Gallon in Missouri

Detroit: Cheaper To Buy A House Than A New Car

The good news is that home sales in the city of Detroit through July are up by a whopping +44% (YTD) compared to last year (7,275 homes sold in 2008 YTD vs. 5,055 last year), but the bad news is that the average price for a home sold in Detroit has fallen by 55.7% to only $18,822 so far this this year, compared to an average price last year of $42,502 for the January-August period! Compared to the peak of $97,850 for the average Detroit home price in 2003, prices have fallen by almost 81% (see chart above, values are annual except for 2008, which is YTD, data available here).

Bottom Line: As I have reported before, the average priced house in Detroit ($18,822) is cheaper than the average price new car ($22,650).

CBOE Volatility Hits Record High in October

The CBOE Volatility Index (VIX®) is a key measure of market expectations of near-term volatility conveyed by S&P 500 stock index option prices. Since its introduction in 1993, VIX has been considered by many to be the world's premier barometer of investor sentiment and market volatility.

The chart above was created using VIX data back to January 1990 using monthly values (available here from Yahoo Finance, except that for October 2008 the highest daily VIX value was used) showing that the VIX reached an all-time record high of 69.95 on October 10 (it fell back to around 55 on Monday and Tuesday of this week).

Thanks to Seyed Mehdian.

Quote of the Day

There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers.

~Richard Feynman, physicist, Nobel laureate (1918-1988)

Thanks to Bill Goffe.

Biggest Economic Nonsense Since Great Depression

Graph update (in reponse to a comment):

An otherwise interesting Washington Post front-pager on “What Went Wrong” claims the current situation “has erupted into the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression.” On the contrary, that honor surely goes to 1980-82, with 1973-75 as a close runner-up.

This may indeed be the biggest postwar financial crisis, but that is a very different thing.

The biggest postwar financial crisis so far was the S&L collapse of the late 1980s, when nearly 3000 financial institutions were closed (see chart above). But the impact of the S&L debacle on the real economy was minor at best (the economy grew by 2.9% a year during that “crisis”). The stock market crash of 1987 inspired many hysterical predictions but no recession at all.

An economic crisis implies a deep and prolonged drop in real output and employment, not just another routine recession. To describe current conditions as a worse economic crisis than 1980-82 is fanciful nonsense.

Cato Institute's Alan Reynolds

Recipe for the Panic of 2007

From the introduction of the NBER working paper "The Subprime Panic," by Yale School of Management Professor Gary B. Gorton:

Subprime mortgages are a financial innovation designed to provide home ownership opportunities to riskier borrowers in the U.S. Such borrowers are indeed riskier (also poor and disproportionately minority), and lending to this group involved a particular mortgage design feature, that resulted in linking the outcome to house price appreciation. Subprime mortgages were then financed via securitization, which in turn has a unique design, reflecting the subprime mortgage design. Subprime securitization tranches were then often sold into CDOs. Tranches of CDOs were, in turn, often purchased by market value off-balance sheet vehicles, and money market mutual funds. Additional subprime risk was created (though not on net) with derivatives.

This nexus of off-balance sheet vehicles, derivatives, securitization, and, in addition, the growth of the repo (repurchase agreement) market constitute what has come to be known as the "shadow banking system." When the U.S. housing prices did not rise as expected, this chain of securities, derivatives, and off-balance sheet vehicles could not be penetrated by most investors or counterparties in the financial system to determine the location and size of the risks. Faced with this lack of information, financial intermediaries refused to deal with each other and began to hoard cash. The panic of 2007 began.

The ingredients of the Panic of 2007 seem to be (data for charts come from the NBER paper):

1. Increase the subprime share of total mortgage originations from 8% to 20% within just a few short years:
2. Increase the percent of subprime mortgages that are securitized, from 50% to 80% within just a few short years:
3. Ingredients #1 and #2 would have been OK, except that house prices started to fall, and the Panic of 2007 started as the subprime mortgage market collapsed:

Another Great Depression. Not.

Do a Google search for the phrase "since the Great Depression" and you'll get about 33,605 hits just from news reports, and 2.5 million hits on Google overall. But there are some major differences between now and the 1930s including:

Updated (thank to Michael Gordon): The money supply was decreased by 1/3 during the 1930s (the "Great Contraction"); there was no FDIC, unemployment insurance or Social Security in the early 1930s; and Congress raised taxes and imposed tariffs so high that world trade basically stopped, just to name a few differences.

The charts below illustrate some other differences:

We're nowhere close to the number of bank failures of the 1930s, when banks were failing at an average rate of almost 1,000 per year:
We're nowhere close to the 17.1% average unemployment rate of the 1930s:
On a per capita basis, real GDP is 7.6 times higher today than in 1932.
Food, clothing and shelter consumed about half of disposable income in the 1930s, compared to only about 1/3 today:

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Total Bank Loans and Leases Reach New Record

According to banking data from the Federal Reserve that was updated today, Total Loans and Leases of Commercial Banks in the U.S. continue to grow, and have doubled from $3.5 trillion in 1999 to $7 trillion in 2008. On a monthly basis, Total Bank Loans and Leases exceeded $7 trillion for the first time in September 2008, and reached $7.258 trillion by the first week of October.

We keep hearing news reports that describe U.S. credit markets as being "tight," "frozen," "seized-up," "ultra-tight," "drum tight," etc. Why isn't that much-publicized credit tightness showing up in commercial bank loan data, which keeps setting record highs, and is now more than $7 trillion?

Watch 20/20's Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics

From John Stossel:

This Friday (10 p.m. ET), I get the entire "20/20" hour for a special: John Stossel's Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics.

There's tremendous excitement about this year's election. People say that their candidate will fix America. Barack Obama inspires idol worship that's usually lavished on rock stars. At the Republican convention, one man told me John McCain was like Superman.

Give me a break. Obama and McCain would have to be a combination of Superman, Santa Claus and Mother Teresa to do what their supporters say they will do. Even if they were, politicians cannot direct our lives and solve our problems. This faith in political solutions thrives in the face of repeated government failure:

Big farm bills have raised the price of food and squeezed out small farms. Campaign finance reform has made it harder to challenge incumbents. FEMA can't deliver water to a hurricane-ravaged New Orleans as well as Walmart can. Medicare has a $35 trillion unfunded liability.

Politicians' "fixes" usually make things worse. Yet the media and the political class call for more government control. Do we really need a president to plan our lives? No. Most of life works best when YOU are in charge.

David Boaz, senior vice president of the Cato Institute, points out that most change doesn't come from politicians. "It comes from people inventing things and creating. The telephone, the telegraph, the computer -- all those kinds of things didn't come from government. They came from people. Most of life -- our families, our romances, our jobs, our travel, our learning -- is outside the government sector. We think sometimes of government as being so important -- and it can interfere in our lives in a lot of ways -- but if the government just protects us from rapists and murderers and foreign armies, and leaves us alone to run our own lives, we'll be better off."

Amen to that.

Paul Krugman: #1 Most Partisan Columnist in U.S.

Lying in Ponds is an attempt to encourage vigorous, independent commentary in the American punditocracy by quantifying and analyzing partisanship. Lying in Ponds tries to draw a fundamental distinction between ordinary party preference and excessive partisanship. The presence of an excessive partisan bias transforms journalism into advertising, too distorted and unreliable to be useful in any serious political debate. Political parties are a healthy, essential part of American democracy; excessive partisanship is not. The methods used here are an attempt to quantify only partisanship, and are not intended as a more general guide to the quality of a columnist.

Lying in Ponds currently tracks the Democratic and Republican biases of a selection of regular political columnists from various sources, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal’s OpinionJournal, and the Washington Post.

Final Rankings for Partisanship:

2002: #1 Paul Krugman

2003: #1 Ann Coulter, #2 Paul Krugman

2004: #1 Ann Coulter, #2 Paul Krugman

2005: #1 Paul Krugman

2007: #1 Ann Coluter, #2 Paul Krugman (tied with Joe Conason)

2008: #1 Paul Krugman

Monday, October 13, 2008

The $64,000 Question

The only question now is whether Paul Krugman will pay taxes on the Nobel prize at the low rates enabled by the Bush tax cuts he has done so much to discredit, or if he will volunteer to pay taxes at higher rates he considers more fair.

~Don Luskin

MP: The 2000 Clinton tax rates are shown above.
Assuming Krugman is already in the top tax bracket, the difference in income taxes on the $1.4 million prize income between the old rate under Clinton of 39.6% and today's rate under Bush of 35% would be $64,400. That amount could be sent to the Treasury as a gift to the U.S. government, here are the instructions.

(Update: Thanks to "notnidiot" for his comment that led to the new title.)

U.S. Sugar Tariffs Double the Price for Americans

U.S. price of sugar: About 22 cents per pound.

World price of sugar:
About 12 cents per pound.

How the Bailout Auction Should Work

How much should the Treasury pay for distressed assets that nobody else wants?

You might reasonably say that the fair price for an asset nobody wants is zero. But bailout proponents tell us that these assets are plenty valuable; it's just that nobody's stepping up to buy them because it's hard to borrow right now. So how do you set a fair price for an asset that nobody else is bidding on?

Rochester economist Steven E. Landsburg explains how a fair price could be established for distressed assets that nobody wants, using a unique auction strategy.

No Need To Wait for Gov't. Health Care Reform

Employers typically rein in health care costs, now galloping at 6% a year, by slapping their workers with higher premiums, deductibles and co-payments. Is there a better way?

Walgreen, the $54 billion (sales) pharmacy chain, is pushing a different approach: supplying the company doctor. It operates 364 work-site clinics for 183 large (1,000-plus employees) employers, including Goldman Sachs, Continental Airlines and Toyota. Walgreen says employers can lower costs by as much as 20%, thanks to the preventive care it provides. Its service will link employees' health records and those of spouses, dependents and retirees, to Walgreen's 6,356 drugstores.

"We can't wait for health care reform," says Hal F. Rosenbluth, who manages the in-company clinics and sold his retail chain, Take Care Health Systems, to Walgreen last year for a reported $100 million.

~Forbes Magazine article "In-House Calls"

Markets Remain Our Best Hope for a Better Future

"The financial crisis is not the crisis of capitalism," according to French president Nicolas Mr. Sarkozy. "It is the crisis of a system that has distanced itself from the most fundamental values of capitalism, which betrayed the spirit of capitalism." Give credit to Mr. Sarkozy for demonstrating leadership in attempting to salvage what we know is true -- that democratic capitalism is the best hope for mankind -- while jettisoning the abuses and fraudulent practices that have distorted the outcomes of free-market competition.

Who would have guessed that it would take a Frenchman to remind us that hope is the limitless source of power that drives the human spirit to create, to improve, to achieve its dreams; it is the greatest civilizing influence in our culture. Yet it was Mr. Sarkozy, speaking before Congress last November, who offered the most profound assessment of our nation's gift to the world.

"What made America great was her ability to transform her own dream into hope for all mankind," he said. "America did not tell the millions of men and women who came from every country in the world and who -- with their hands, their intelligence and their heart -- built the greatest nation in the world: 'Come, and everything will be given to you.' She said: 'Come, and the only limits to what you'll be able to achieve will be your own courage and your own talent.'"

It's a lesson that should never be lost or forgotten.

~Judy Shelton in today's WSJ article "A Capitalist Manifesto: Markets remain our best hope for a better future."

Don't Sell US Short:Keep Your Money in the Market

We are not going to have a depression, and we have survived financial crises before. A century of investing experience, as well as insights from the field of behavioral finance, suggest that investors who bail out of equities during times like these are almost always making the wrong decision.

Look at history: The market eventually bounded back from the damaging stagflation of the 1970s and the savings-and-loan crisis of the early 1990s, when a whole industry had to be rescued. Stocks also recovered from the Asian crisis of the late 1990s. Similarly, investors who held on after the more than 20% one-day stock-market decline in 1987 were eventually well rewarded.

Don't forget that the U.S. economy is still the most flexible in the world and our "innovation machine" is alive and well.

No one has consistently made money by selling America short, and I am confident the same lesson is true today.

~Burton Malkiel in today's WSJ

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Intrade is Not An Opinion Poll, It's a Prediction Mkt.

Bobble comments: I don't put much stock (pun not intended) in Intrade. I find is a far better source of how the candidates are doing. It computes averages of all the major polls and publishes the results in easy to comprehend format (see chart above).

MP: The average of the polls shows Obama ahead of McCain by 49.7% to 42.4%, while Intrade odds are 77.1% for Obama and 22.6% for McCain. Why the huge difference?

Because they are measuring something completely and totally different. The opinion polls are based on surveys of likely voters say who have stated which candidate THEY will likely vote for. The Intrade betting is not based on who traders will vote for themselves, and it is not based on who the traders WANT to win the election (or not win), the betting is on who is MOST LIKELY TO WIN THE ELECTION!

I could be a strong Obama supporter or a strong McCain supporter, or I could hate Obama or McCain, or be completely indifferent, and none of those positions about MY OWN voting preferences would influence what position I would take on Intrade. My position on Intrade is based on how I expect millions of other people to vote.

Bottom Line: Given that Obama has a 7.3% lead in the polls, the trading on Intrade suggests that Obama now has a 77.1% chance to win the election. That's not saying that Obama will get 77.1% of the vote, just that he has a 77.1% to win the election.

As some others have pointed out, if you think Intrade is flawed, inefficient or deficient in some way, that means you can make lots of money on Intrade by exploiting those inefficiencies by betting against the collective wisdom of the masses who have money at risk when they take a position on Intrade. Good luck.

5 Steps To A Housing, Credit and Financial Crisis

1. Weaken lending standards to increase home ownership. Mortgage underwriting standards have been undermined by virtually every branch of the government since the early 1990s. The government had been attempting to increase home ownership in the U.S., which had been stagnant for several decades (see chart above). In particular, the government had tried to increase home ownership among poor and minority Americans. Although a seemingly noble goal, the tool chosen to achieve this goal was one that endangered the entire mortgage enterprise: intentional weakening of the traditional mortgage-lending standards.

2. Celebrate the success of weakened lending standards, as home ownership surges to historical high levels. The weakening of mortgage-lending standards did succeed in increasing home ownership (from 64% to 69%, see chart above). As home ownership rates increased there was self-congratulation all around. The community of regulators, academic specialists, and housing activists all reveled in the increase in home ownership and the increase in wealth brought about by home ownership. The decline in mortgage underwriting standards was universally praised as an “innovation” in mortgage lending.

3. Increased home ownership creates a speculative housing bubble. The increase in home ownership increased the price of housing, helping to create a housing “bubble.” The bubble brought in a large number of speculators in the form of individuals owning one or two houses who hoped to quickly resell them at a profit. Estimates are that one quarter of all home sales were speculative sales of this nature.

4. Investors use ARMs and low(no)-down payment mortgages to speculate in housing. Speculators wanted mortgages with the smallest down payment and the lowest interest rate. These would be adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs), option ARMs, and so forth. Once housing prices stopped rising, these speculators tried to get out from under their investments made largely with other peoples’ money, which is why foreclosures increased mainly for adjustable-rate mortgages and not for fixed-rate mortgages, regardless of whether mortgages were prime or subprime. The rest, as they say, is history.

Unfortunately, it seems likely that our governing bodies have learned little or nothing from this series of events. If the proper lessons are not learned, we are likely to have a reprise sometime in the future.

From the article "
Anatomy of a Trainwreck," by Professor Stan Liebowitz, featured previously on CD here.

MP: We could add step #5: Easy monetary policy by the Fed in 2000-2002, which brought the Fed Funds target rate from 6.5% to 1%, and lowered mortgage rates to record-low levels in 2002-2003 (see chart below, click to enlarge).

Cartoon of the Day

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Joe Bonamassa: Turn It Up & Check This Guy Out

Joe Bonamassa, the new Stevie Ray Vaughan? How did I miss this guy?

More Than 3:1 Odds for Obama on Intrade

Intrade Odds: 77% for Obama, 23.5% for McCain.

Want Health Insurance? Go Out and Buy It’s Nick Gillespie isn’t making a run for the White House, but he knows how to get coverage to at least half of the 45 million Americans who need it. Call it the Gillespie Plan: If you want health insurance, get some.

In Michigan, you can get basic health insurance through Blue Cross starting at $47.14 per month for those 18-30 years old (about the cost of a basic cell phone plan), and starting at $138.54 per month for another plan for individuals under 65 (not too much more than a cable TV plan with premium channels, and less than two cells phones at the monthly average of $77).

More on the "Decline of the Middle Class" Myth

On this CD post about this Skeptical Optimist post, Bobble writes (with grammar/punctuation corrected): You might want to check Steve's latest revisions. They are inflation adjusted and the income trends look pretty flat. Real income increased from 1994-2007 at approximately 1%. He still compares the period of 1994-2007 with the period 2001- 2007. If he showed the increase from 2001 to 2007 I *think* it would be around zero. He still doesn't show the increase for the top quintile. So how can we tell how the middle class did compared to the top earners? I think this guy and his charts are busted. That you are ignoring this reflects negatively on you and your website. I hope you are more diligent in your teachings.

1. If you look at the actual Census data, you'll see that: a) the datasets for household income are available from 1994 to 2007, and b) household income is NOT reported by quintile or decile, but by income categories in increments of $2,500 UP TO $100,000: e.g. under $2,500, $2,500 to $4,999..... $97,500 to $99,999, and THEN $100,000 AND OVER.

As Steve explains, "The bottom 4 quintiles of household income are easy to analyze, but the 5th (top) quintile is not. Each quintile has the same number of households in it, but only 4 out of 5 quintiles have easy-to-calculate, weighted-average income per household, and income per earner. That's why the charts don't show the highest one."

Certainly, if Census had reported income by quintile, and Steve Conover left that quintile out of his analysis, that omission would be subject to criticism. But if you look at the data, and read Steve's explanation, you'll see that it was not possible to report the top quintile because of the way Census organized the income data.

And adding the top quintile would not change the fact that "income per earner" for all four of the bottom quintiles increased between 1994-2007. In other words, the "middle class" did not disappear and income for that group and even income for the "lower class" did NOT stagnate. And if income inequality per earner did increase during that period (which we can't tell without the top quintile), it was NOT because the income of the middle and lower income groups stagnated or declined.

2. Adjusting for inflation doesn't change the original analysis that showed "income per earner" for all four bottom quintiles increasing between 1994 and 2007, at about the same rate, but with a slightly higher rate for the bottom quintile than the other three (see top graph above). Subtracting 2.5% average annual inflation from each quintile doesn't change the facts that: a) real income per earner for each of the four groups increased between 1994 and 2007 at about the same rate (1%), except that the LOWEST QUINTILE increased at a significantly HIGHER rate of 1.5% (see bottom chart above).

Bottom Line: The value of Steve Conover's analysis is that he has converted the Census Bureau's raw data on "Household Income" from 1994-2007 to INCOME PER EARNER, BY QUINTILE, to investigate the often-reported stories about "the decline of the middle class" (305,000 Google hits), "the war on the middle class" (515,000 Google hits), etc. Whether we look at nominal income or real income, the result is the same: all income groups have experienced gains in "income per earner" from 1994-2007, and the lowest income quintile did even better than the next highest 3 quintiles. Therefore, the rich got richer, the middle class got richer, and the poor got richer.

Any analysis of household income over time will always be distorted by the facts that: a) the number of "persons per household," and b) the number of "earners per household," vary significantly by quintile, and change over time.

My own analysis showed this in a previous post, when I adjusted real median household income over time by the average number of persons per household, which has declined significantly from about 3.3 persons per household in 1967 to about 2.55 in 2007. After adjusting for household size, the real median income per person reached an all-time high in 2007, see charts below:

Friday, October 10, 2008

Gas Below $2.50 in Missouri


I'll Drink To That

Andy Roth at Club for Growth points out that Anheuser Busch (BUD) stock is up by 30% over the last six months, while the Dow Jones average is down by 30% (see chart above, click to enlarge).

U.S. Economy Ranks #1 for Competitiveness

Good News: Despite the financial crisis, the United States continues to be the most competitive economy in the world according to the World Economic Forum's "Global Competitiveness Report 2008-2009." (see top chart above) This is because it is endowed with many structural features that make its economy extremely productive and place it on a strong footing to ride out business cycle shifts and economic shocks. Thus, despite rising concerns about the soundness of the banking sector and other macroeconomic weaknesses, the country’s many other strengths continue to make it a very productive environment. The United States is ranked first for innovation, and its markets support this innovative activity through their efficient allocation of resources to their most effective use.

Bad News: However, the United States has built up large macroeconomic imbalances over recent years, with repeated fiscal deficits leading to rising and burgeoning levels of public indebtedness. This indicates that the country is not preparing financially for its future liabilities and is on the road to making interest payments that will increasingly restrict its fiscal policy freedom going into the future.

The three most problematic factors for doing business in the U.S. are 1) tax rates, 2) tax regulations and 3) inefficient government bureaucracy (see bottom chart).

Cartoon of the Day

Thursday, October 09, 2008

Income PER EARNER Has Actually Risen For All Groups, And Rose Fastest For The Lowest Quintile

From The Skeptical Optimist:

Median household income since 2001 looks stagnant at best, doesn't it (see chart above)? Something must have been really wrong with a growing economy that left the median household out of all that growth, don't you think? No wonder we hear so much about it from our politicians.

Hold on though. Try to think of one company — just one, large or small — that has ever written a payroll check to a "household." For example, has Microsoft Corp. ever written a payroll check to "The occupants of the house at 2345 Main Street, Redmond, Washington"? No, of course not.

A household has a group of people in it; most of those groups contain at least one specific person who earns a paycheck. The U.S. Census Bureau calls those people "Earners." The amount of money income received by a household depends to a great degree on the number of "earners" in that household (
Census data here).

So the question about stagnated incomes is really a multi-part question. Here is the better question, and its multi-part answers:

1. Did household income stagnate or decline for households with no earners at all? YES.

2. How about for households that had a decline in the number of earners? YES.

3. How about those that had the same number of earners? NO.

4. How about those that had an increase in the number of earners? NO.

By now it should be obvious that an even better question is: Did the middle class income earner participate in the overall economy's growth? It's a better question because it removes the confusion caused by differences in the number of earners per household.

So let's take a look at how "income per earner" did for each of the quintiles of household income.

The chart below shows the result for the period 1994-2007. Note that any possible definition of the "middle class" would show that middle class earners' incomes did not stagnate or decline. In fact, they grew in tandem with the 3.2% average growth rate of overall disposable income per capita (a derivative of GDP).

Bottom Line: A previous CD post highlighted 5 problems with the Census Bureau's data on median household income, and showed that on a "per household member," real median household income actually reached an all-time high in 2007.

The Skeptical Optimist now provides evidence that on an "income per earner" basis, income grew at about the same rate (3.4% to 3.9%) for all income groups between 1994 and 2007, and actually grew the fastest (3.9%) for the bottom quintile (see chart above). In other words, between 1994 and 2007, the rich have gotten richer, the middle class has gotten richer, and the poor have gotten richer, all at about the same rate.

The Top 1% of Taxpayers Paid More in Federal Income Taxes in 2006 Than the Entire Bottom 95%

According to the most recent tax data from the IRS through 2006 (available here from the Tax Foundation):

The top 1% of taxpayers earned $1.79 trillion (22.06% of the total) in 2006 and paid $408.4 billion in taxes (about 40% of the total). The bottom 95% of taxpayers earned $5.14 trillion (63.34% of the total) and paid $408.1 billion taxes (about 40% of the total).

In other words, the top 1% of U.S. taxpayers paid slightly more in federal income taxes ($408.4 billion) in 2006 than the entire bottom 95% of taxpayers paid ($408.1 billion), see top chart above.

Moreover, the tax burden on the top 1% has increased over time, while the tax burden on the bottom 95% has decreased (see bottom chart above). For example, in 1980 the top 1% paid only 19% of total federal income taxes paid, while the bottom 95% paid more than 63%. Over the last 25 years, the tax burden on the top 1% increased from 19% to 40%, while the tax share of the bottom 95% has decreased from 63% to 40%.

In 2002, before most of the "tax cuts" went into effect, the share of income taxes paid by the top 1% was below 34%, and by 2006 that share increased to almost 40%. If we assessed tax policies by the share of income taxes paid by "the rich" (i.e. top 1%), the "Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003" wasn't a tax cut, it was a tax increase, since it increased the tax burden on the top 1% to record levels (40%), and resulted in more tax revenue from the top 1% than the entire bottom 95% of taxpayers!

Now, it's also true that the share of adjusted gross income earned by the top 1% has increased over time, while the share of income earned by the bottom 95% has decreased (see chart below), although the income share of the top 1% has been fairly stable at around 20% for the last ten years.

Who Needs Investment Banks? Trade Finance Makes a Comeback and Booms Amid The Global Crisis

GENEVA (Reuters) - Business is booming in the trade finance market as exporters and importers return to a tried and tested form of credit amid the chaos of the financial crisis, bankers in the sector say.

Demand for trade finance -- a traditional form of banking dating back to the Middle Ages -- is so strong that some houses say they are turning away business for lack of capacity.

Trade finance is the easiest, cheapest and most collateralized form of credit, industry experts say.

In recent years customers were lured away by investment banks and corporate finance departments offering sophisticated products, but now they are flooding back attracted by the simplicity and transparency of trade finance.

HT: Clover Aguayo

Bottom Line: Markets adjust. The invisible hand will survive any financial crisis.

Update: Traffic Volume

Thanks to John Thacker for a pointer to a longer historical data source for traffic volume back to 1971. There were two previous periods of significant decreases in traffic volume, comparable to the most recent 9-month, 2.08% decrease in miles driven (moving 12-month total) from November 2007 to July 2008.

There was a 11-month, 2.12% decrease in traffic volume from December 1973 to October 1974 (see shaded area in graph above), when gas increased from 40 cents to 55 cents per gallon. I think price controls were in effect then and prevented an even higher increase in gas prices, since oil went from $4.30 to $11.16 per barrel during that period.

A 3.25% reduction in traffic volume occurred over a 12-month period from May 1979 to May 1980 when oil almost tripled from $15 to $40 per barrel, and retail gas prices almost doubled from 62 cents to $1.11 (see shaded area in graph).

Therefore, I stand corrected - there were several previous periods in U.S. history with greater reductions in traffic volume than the recent 9-month period of a cumulative 2.08% decrease in miles driven. With gas prices falling now ($2.68 in Missouri) in October, the trend may reverse, although we'll probably see monthly declines in August and September when those data become available.

What You Need To Know About The Bailout

George Mason economist Russell Roberts (and Cafe Hayek blogger) breaks it down.

More Food At Home, Less Dining Out

Link. (HT: Rolf Penner)

Restaurant industry performance remained soft in August, as the National Restaurant Association's comprehensive index of restaurant activity stood below 100 for the tenth consecutive month. The Association's Restaurant Performance Index (RPI) - a monthly composite index that tracks the health of and outlook for the U.S. restaurant industry - stood at 98.3 in August, up 0.1% from its July level.

The recent lack of change in the Restaurant Performance Index reflects the wait-and-see sentiment in the financial markets and overall economy. Restaurant operators reported negative same-store sales for the eighth time in the last 10 months, and their outlook for sales growth in the months ahead remains uncertain. A record 31% of restaurant operators said the economy is the number-one challenge facing their business, while 22% identified food costs as their top challenge.