Saturday, November 29, 2008

Retail Sales Up +3%: What Happened to The Worst Economy Since the Great Depression?

Waco, Texas -- "Shoppers out in droves for Black Friday despite weakening economy." Waco shoppers Friday gave Scrooge the boot and thumbed their noses at a bad economy as they filled parking lots and even did some good-natured shoving as they entered stores en masse.

Nov. 29 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. holiday retail sales increased 3% yesterday from a year earlier, the smallest gain for a “Black Friday” in three years.


MP: Isn't it interesting how the media reported the 3% increase in Black Friday sales? It got variously described as "consumers thumbing their noses at a bad economy," the "smallest gain in three years," "positive for merchants," and "lukewarm."

Since we're supposedly in the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, it's suprising that Black Friday sales are up at all, and surprising that sales are expected to increase by 2.2% in 2008, close behind the 2.4% last year when the economy supposedly was not on the verge of falling into the Great Depression (see table above)? What gives? Shouldn't any increase be considered good news?

Gas in St. Louis Falls Below All-Time Historical Low

The chart above shows the cost of 1,000 gallons of gas purchased at the retail price from January 1980 to November 2008, measured as a percent of monthly per-capita disposable income using income data and population data from the BEA, and gas price data from the EIA and Gas Buddy.

At the current national average price of $1.83 per gallon, 1,000 gallons of gas ($1,830) would cost 5.22% of per-capita disposable income of $35,058. That's the lowest cost since December of 2003, almost five years ago. In St. Louis, where gas is available in some locations for as low as $1.33 per gallon, a thousand gallons of gas now costs only 3.79% of monthly per-capita disposable income, which is slightly lower than the February 1999 all-time historical low of 3.88%, when the retail price of gas dropped to 92 cents per gallon!

The Top Ten Worst Currencies in the World

According to Fox News, see the full list here also on one page. The #1 worst currency in the world? That's easy, you should know that one. #7 worst is the Iranian rial ($1 = 10,179 Rial), pictured above.

Krugman's Recipe for Another Depression: Spend

What kept the picture so dark so long during the 1930s (see chart above)? Deflation for one, but also the notion that government could engineer economic recovery by favoring the public sector at the expense of the private sector. New Dealers raised taxes again and again to fund spending. The New Dealers also insisted on higher wages when businesses could ill afford them. Roosevelt, for example, signed into law first his National Recovery Administration, whose codes forced businesses to pay an above-market minimum wage, and then the Wagner Act, which gave union workers more power.

As a result of such policy, pay for workers in the later 1930s was well above trend. Mr. Ohanian's research documents this. High wages hurt corporate profits and therefore hiring. The unemployed stayed unemployed. "If you had a job you were all right" -- the phrase we all heard as children about the Depression -- really does capture the period.

Why does all this matter today? Because lawmakers are considering new labor legislation containing "card check," which would strengthen organized labor and so its wage demands. Because employees continue to pressure firms to spend on health care, without considering they may be making the company unable to hire an unemployed friend. Piling on public-sector jobs or raising wages may take away jobs in the private sector, directly or indirectly.

What the new administration decides about marginal tax rates also matters. Mr. Obama said in a Thanksgiving talk that he wanted to "create or save 2.5 million new jobs." People who talk about saving new jobs are usually talking about the private-sector's capacity to generate jobs in the future -- not about the public sector alone. We know that the new administration is going to spend. But how? It can try to figure out a way to do that without hurting the private sector. Or it can just spend, Krugman-wise, and risk repeating the very depression we seek to avoid.

~"The Krugman Recipe for Depression: Massive government spending is no solution to unemployment," by Amity Shlaes in today's WSJ

Low-Cost Medical Tourism vs. The High Prices of the Two Cartels: Big Insurance and Big Medicine

Medical Tourism is a spontaneous order or sorts that has grown steadily to escape the increasingly high prices of the cartelized U.S. health care system. A cartelized system is one where price discovery is prevented or impeded, and I can't think of a better example of than the U.S. health care system, where one cartel, the Insurance Industry (MP: "Big Insurance"), negotiates prices and services with another cartel, the Medical Industry (MP: "Big Medicine").

This "Health Care Insurance Model" is, of course, protected and encouraged by the State, which not only enforces the high barrier of entry into either cartel, but also treats health insurance as a non-taxable employment benefit compared to income. It should be no surprise that "cartel pricing discovery" results in a "crisis" in terms of the "high cost of health care."

Today, the high prices of the cartelized health insurance model has now led many to adopt the language of "rights" when it comes to health care. Typically, high prices are not blamed on cartelization, but rather on market failure, for example, on "information asymmetry," or "inelastic demand," or whatever. However, if high prices were truly a case of market failure, then, obviously, there should be no medical tourisim market. That there are such markets indicates empirically that high prices have nothing to do with market failure, and thus appeals to health care as a positive right, i.e, a "coercive claim," should be examined skeptically. The more statists chirp about the "right" of health care, the more the medical tourism markets seem to exponentially expand.

~"Free Market Medicine"

HT: Ben Cunningham

Comparisons to the 1930s: Nonsense and Nitwittery

GENESEE COUNTY, Michigan -- To those who lived through the Great Depression -- people now in their 80s and 90s -- today's economic conditions don't come close to rivaling the distress of the Great Depression.

"When I see that on the TV, I say to myself, 'You don't know a thing,'" said Flint resident Peggie Chisolm, 92, laughing.Worries mounted that the United States could be on the verge of the next depression a few financial institutions collapsed and the stock market took a dive.

But how plausible is it that economic conditions could return to the days of the 1930s, when "Brother Can You Spare a Dime" could be heard on the radio and shantytowns sprung up across the country?

Local economist Mark J. Perry says that any such comparisons are "complete nitwittery and utter nonsense." "Most of the people complaining still have their iPod, their computer and two cars in the garage," said Perry, an economics professor at the University of Michigan-Flint. "It's not based on any factual evidence. We're so spoiled that it really takes distorted thinking to compare the Great Depression to today."

No Real Estate Bubble in Central U.S.A.


The top chart above (click to enlarge) shows the OFHEO House Price Indexes for Nevada, South Dakota, Texas and North Dakota, just recently updated through the third quarter 2008.

The bottom chart above shows the regional OFHEO House Price Indexes for the Pacific Census region (Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington), the West South Central region (Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas), the West North Central region (Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, North Dakota, Minnesota, South Dakota and Missouri) and the East South Central region (Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee).

Bottom Line: The way it gets reported by the media, you would think that the entire country is suffering from the devastating effects of a real estate bubble, when in fact the worst problems are concentrated in a handful of states like California, Nevada, Arizona and Florida. The fifteen states in the three regions representing the entire middle part of the country have not experienced a real estate bubble, and the home price indexes for those regions show a historically consistent pattern of gradual home price increases over time, with a slight leveling off in recent quarters.

Friday, November 28, 2008

Uncorking CDOs: Financial Crisis Explained



Marketplace Senior Editor Paddy Hirsch gives a bubbly explanation of the intricacies of collateralized debt obligations those financial instruments that got us into this financial mess.

2002-08: 60% Growth in World Per-Capita Real GDP

In his book "The Progress Paradox: How Life Gets Better While People Feel Worse," Gregg Easterbrook, senior editor at the New Republic and contributing editor to The Atlantic, castigates the media for dwelling on minor problems without celebrating the broader, more upbeat context in which they exist. One of the broader, more upbeat events of recent years is the significant and dramatic increase in real GDP per-capita worldwide.

Using world GDP data from the IMF and world population data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the chart above shows real world GDP per-capita from 1985 to 2013 (data from 2008 - 2013 are estimated). After remaining constant at about $5,000 for 15 years from 1987 to 2002, real GDP per capita will increase 60% from $5,000 in 2002 to an estimated $8,000 this year. After leveling out for a year in 2009 due to the global economic slowdown (see arrow above), growth in per-capita real output is expected to resume in 2010 and exceed $9,000 by 2013.

Bottom Line: The 60% growth in world per-capita real GDP between 2002 and 2008 is probably one of the greatest periods of economic growth in such a short period of time in history, and is definitely part of the broader, more upbeat context of this period in history.

IMF: Only One Year of Below-Average Growth in a Decade-Long Strong Global Economic Expansion?

According to the International Monetary Fund's most recent economic outlook, world real GDP growth is projected to slow from 5% in 2007 to 3.75% percent in 2008 and then to 2.2% in 2009 (see chart above), with the downturn led by advanced economies.

Looking forward, the IMF predicts that world real GDP will rebound to above-average growth rates of 4.2% (2010), 4.8% (2011), 4.8% (2012) and 4.7% (2013). Growth for the advanced economies is forecast to be above 2% by 2010, with even higher growth of between 2.5% to 3% between 2011 and 2013.

Bottom Line: If the IMF forecast is accurate, the current global economic slowdown will produce only one year of below-average world output growth (2.2% in 2009), which will follow six years of strong world economic growth above the 3.46% post-1980 average (see chart), and an above-average expansion of the world economy will resume in 2010 with at least four years of real GDP growth close to 5%. Moreover, if the IMF is correct, the predicted global economic slowdown of 2009 will be roughly equivalent to the world slowdown in 2001, and much less severe than the slowdowns in 1990-1991 and 1980-1982.

Real Gas Prices Lowest Since January 2004

The cheapest gas in the country can be found in Kansas City and St. Louis for as low as $1.33 per gallon, and the national average retail price for gas is now down to $1.83 per gallon. Without the high-priced states of Alaska ($2.68) and Hawaii ($2.73), the national average for the other 48 states is down to $1.79 per gallon.

Using real gas prices from the EIA (in November 2008 dollars), the chart above (click to enlarge) shows how today's gas prices compare to past prices.

The last time real gas prices (national average) were as low as $1.83 per gallon was almost five years ago in January of 2004, and the last time real gas prices (national average) were as low as $1.33 per gallon (current Kansas City low price) was almost seven years ago in December of 2001 (see chart above). Gas prices in Kansas City are within 12 cents per gallon of the lowest-ever real gas price of $1.21 per gallon in February of 1999.

People and Businesses Trade, Not Countries

There's a growing anti-trade sentiment in our country. Much of the dialogue is grossly misinformed. Let's try to untangle it a bit with a few questions and observations.

Does the U.S. trade with Japan and England? Put another way, is it members of the U.S. Congress trading with their counterparts in the Japanese Diet or the English Parliament? Of course not. When I purchased my Lexus, I had nothing to do with either the Japanese Diet or the U.S. Congress. Through an intermediary, a Lexus dealer, I dealt with Toyota Motor Corporation.

While it might be convenient to speak of one country trading with another, such aggregation can conceal a lot of evil, particularly when people call for trade barriers. For example, what would be a moral case for third-party interference, by either the Japanese Diet or the U.S. Congress, with an exchange between me and Toyota Motor Corporation?

Some might reason that since Japan places restrictions on U.S. products entering their country, an appropriate retaliatory measure is not to allow Japanese products to freely enter the U.S. Consider that Japanese protectionist restrictions on rice imports force Japanese consumers to pay three or four times the world price for rice. How much sense does it make for Congress to retaliate against Japan by imposing restrictions on their products thereby forcing American consumers, say Lexus buyers, to pay higher prices? Should our rule be: If one country screws its citizens we should retaliate by screwing our citizens?

~George Mason economist Walter Williams

MP: It's a simple, but overlooked point: Countries don't trade, individual American consumers make voluntary decisions to buy products produced by foreign companies (e.g. check the country of origin on the tags/labels on your clothes), and individual American businesses voluntarily buy from, and sell to, foreign firms and consumers. Most of the discussion about trade focuses on aggregate trade statistics at the "country level," like reports of a $56.5 billion U.S. trade deficit in September, a $700 billion U.S. trade deficit for 2007, a $195 trade deficit with China this year, or a $14 billion trade surplus with the Netherlands this year.

Like Walter Williams points out, those aggregate trade data can disguise the fact that it was individual American consumers and businesses making voluntary decisions on buying and selling products every day that result in some country-level trade deficit or surplus when trade data between the U.S. and other countries is aggregated at the end of a month, quarter or year.

Bottom Line: People trade, not countries. Therefore, any restrictions on trade in the form of protectionism hurt American people, i.e. U.S. consumers, and the workers and shareholders of U.S. businesses. A tariff on Japanese-made products is not a tariff on the country of Japan,it is really a tax on American consumers and businesses who voluntarily decide to buy products made by Japanese producers.

Professor Morici: "Big 3 Bankruptcy Now, Not Later"



From Maryland Professor Peter Morici's Senate testimony on the Big Three bailout (click arrow above to watch video):

Circumstances are dramatically different today than in 1979 when Chrysler received assistance from the federal government. In those days, the challenge at Chrysler was to become competitive with Ford and GM, and Lee Iacocca had a clear plan to achieve that objective and succeeded. Today, the Detroit Three, though improved in productivity and with lower labor costs thanks to concessions from the United Auto Workers, are still not as competitive as the Japanese transplants.

Margins in automobile manufacturing are thin and there is no such thing as being "almost as competitive." Either a company is competitive or it is not—either it accomplishes the cost structure enjoyed by Toyota and Honda, operating in the United States, or it will continually cede market share and run into financial difficulties.

By assisting the Detroit Three, Congress can delay one or all of them going through Chapter 11 reorganization but sooner or later one or all will face reorganization. The communities and suppliers dependent on these companies would be better off going through that process now than by delaying it with assistance from the federal government.

Without a new labor agreement that brings wages, benefits and work rules in line with those at the most competitive transplant factories, and without reduced debt and other liabilities, the Detroit Three will continue to lag in product innovation and field too few attractive new vehicles, because their higher costs, debt and other liabilities require them to spend less on new productive development than they should. Also, they are inclined to field products with less desirable content to compensate for higher costs. As consumers find vehicles made by Japanese and other transplants more attractive, like those imported from Korea and eventually from China, the Detroit Three will cede market share of one or a few percentage points each year.

If Chapter 11 is put off, the successors to GM, Ford and Chrysler that emerge from a bankruptcy reorganization process will be smaller and support fewer jobs than if these companies endure this difficult transition in 2009. More jobs can be saved among GM, Ford and Chrysler and their suppliers if bankruptcy reorganization is endured now than in the future.

The New Political Economy

In the old days if you wanted to get rich, you did it the Warren Buffett way: You learned to read balance sheets. Today you learn to read political tea leaves. You don't anticipate Intel's third-quarter earnings; instead, you guess what side of the bed Henry Paulson will wake up on tomorrow.

Today's extreme stock market volatility is not just a symptom of fear -- fear cannot account for days of wild market swings upward -- but a reaction to political decisions that have vast economic effects. We have gone from a market economy to a political economy.


We may one day go back to a market economy. Meanwhile, we need to face the two most important implications of our newly politicized economy: the vastly increased importance of lobbying and the massive market inefficiencies that political directives will introduce. Lobbying used to be about advantages at the margin -- a regulatory break here, a subsidy there. Now lobbying is about life and death. Your lending institution or industry gets a bailout -- or it dies.

You used to go to New York for capital. Now Wall Street, broke, is coming to Washington. With unimaginably large sums of money being given out by Washington, the Obama administration, through no fault of its own, will be subject to the most intense, most frenzied lobbying in American history. That will introduce one kind of economic distortion. The other kind will come from the political directives issued by newly empowered politicians.

~Charles Krauthammer

Outsourcing Santa

Santa's been Bangalored (click to enlarge).

Thursday, November 27, 2008

My Dream: Governor Issues Predatory Pricing Order To Protect Gas Station Owners From Low Gas Prices

A post titled "Price Gouging: The Latest Victim" from Peter Klein has been circulating on the blogs, I found it on Coyote Blog, and it inspired the following post, based on the Georgia Governor's Executive Order Activating Georgia's Price Gouging Statute:

ATLANTA – In response to falling gas prices, Governor Sonny Perdue signed an Executive Order this week enacting Georgia's predatory pricing statute to protect Georgia gas stations and oil companies from unlawful, unconscionable decreases in gas prices due to falling consumer demand, increases in the supply of gasoline, or predatory market competition.

Georgia's predatory pricing statute prevents ruthless price-conscious consumers from taking advantage of gas station owners and oil companies during an economic slowdown by only agreeing to buy goods or services if they are offered at unreasonable or egregiously low prices, i.e. prices that are considered to be “predatory.”

“The financial crisis and economic recession have seriously decreased the demand for gasoline, which has had a significant downward effect on prices,” said Governor Sonny Perdue. “However, we expect that the prices Georgia’s consumers are willing to pay at the pump be reasonable, and not excessively low. We will not tolerate greedy consumers preying on, and taking advantage of, Georgian gas stations and oil companies during an economic slowdown.”

“Mrs. Perdue and I hope and pray the economic hardship on gas station owners and oil companies from extremely low gas prices to be minimal,” Governor Perdue added. “Georgians stand ready to assist our fellow American gas station owners and oil companies in any way possible as they recover from the impacts of this dangerous decrease in consumer demand for gasoline, which has contributed to the unprecedented fall in gas prices of more than 50% in just four months.”

Citizens are asked to report any suspected incidences of predatory pricing to the Governor's Office of Consumer Affairs at (404) 651-8600 or (800) 869-1123.

Big 3 Are Profitable Around the World, But Not U.S.

GM CEO Rick Wagoner told Congress last week that GM's China operations are profitable. They actually help to underwrite the massive losses in the U.S. The brainpans on the Hill might have asked why Ford and GM managed to build viable auto businesses all over the world but not in North America.

You don't need the Hubble telescope to tell the answer: The UAW is present only in the U.S., not all over the world.


Here's a plan: Buy out the UAW with taxpayer dollars and free the Big Three to staff their factories with nonunion workers the way Toyota and Honda and BMW do. Last week's Hill circus notwithstanding, the negotiation that really needs to take place now is between Democrats and their union allies. The Big Three executives are just in the way.

~Holman Jenkins in today's WSJ

Markets (Blogs) in Everything: Brian Williams' Ties

New York (AP) -- Each night after watching Brian Williams deliver the "NBC Nightly News," an English teacher in Ohio is moved to go to her computer and write — about what Williams wore around his neck.

The Brian Williams Tie Report Archive isn't the weirdest thing you'll find online, but it's up there. It's a snarky, occasionally appreciative and flat-out funny read that will have you looking at Williams as never before.


See a full list here of "Markets in Everything" posts on the Marginal Revolution blog.


Crass Commercialism vs. Crass Politics

Even more predictable than the post-Thanksgiving appearance of shopping-mall Santas is the inability of pundits at this time of year to say or to write "commercialism" without prefixing to it the word "crass."

I challenge this notion. Commerce is peaceful. It involves sellers working hard and taking risks to bring to market goods and services that consumers want to buy. No one forces anyone to do anything; all is voluntary.

What truly is crass is politics - that sorry spectacle of power-seeking ego-maniacs who, when not pronouncing platitudes, are promising to help group A by picking the pockets of group B. While commerce is honest, politics is duplicitous.

While commerce is peaceful, politics inevitably pits citizen against citizen. Far more enlightened and ethical behavior is on display during any one day in a shopping mall than the most intrepid observer will find in a century on Pennsylvania Avenue.

~George Mason economist and Cafe Hayek blogger Don Boudreaux

Jobs Bank Cost Big Three $1.5 Billion in 2006

From the Wall Street Journal article in 2006 "Money for Nothing: U.S. Car Companies Pay Hundreds of Millions of Dollars in Wages to Idled Workers":

The Jobs Bank is a two-decade-old program in which nearly 15,000 auto workers continue to get paid after their companies stop needing them. To earn wages and benefits that often top $100,000 a year, the workers must perform some company-approved activity. Many volunteer or go back to school. The rest clock time in the rubber room or something like it.

The Jobs Bank at GM and other U.S. auto companies including Ford Motor is likely to cost around $1.4 billion to $2 billion this year. The programs, which are up for renewal next year when union contracts expire, have become a symbol of why Detroit struggles even as Japanese auto makers with big U.S. operations prosper.

About 7,500 GM workers are now in the Jobs Bank, more than double the figure a year ago. Each person costs GM around $100,000 to $130,000 in wages and benefits, according to internal union and company figures, meaning GM's total cost this year is likely to be around $750 million to $900 million.

Mr. Pestillo, a former Ford executive, and others see the Jobs Bank as a corrosive influence with significant indirect costs because it encourages auto makers to build more vehicles than consumers want. Companies figure it is better to build cars with little or no profit margin than to pay people not to work, he says. They also may keep rote work in-house even though it would be cheaper to outsource.

The system gives older union workers little incentive to move to other plants, find jobs at other companies or retire. There is no limit on how long a worker can stay in the Jobs Bank. They don't have to look for work at their company. Contracts allow workers to turn down any job offer at a site farther than 50 miles from their home plant.

MP: GM lost $2 billion in 2006, and in that same year it is estimated that GM spent between $750-900 million for the Jobs Bank, suggesting that almost half (38-45%)of GM's loss that year was because of its costs to pay idled workers in the Jobs Bank. For the Big Three as a group (including 7,500 GM workers and another 7,500 Ford and Chrysler workers), the 15,000 workers in the Jobs Bank cost the Big Three between $1.5 billion and $1.8 billion.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Quantitative Easing: Interest Rates Head to Zero?

FT.Com -- Financial markets notched up another historic milestone on Wednesday as the yield on 10-year U.S. Treasury debt fell below 3% for the first time in 50 years (since March 1956, see chart above). The decline in yields – to a low of 2.98% – comes in response to unconventional policy measures taken by the US Federal Reserve this week aimed at pushing short-term and long-term interest rates lower. This so-called “quantitative easing” is a strategy central banks use to fight deflation, the dreaded combination of declining growth and falling asset prices.

“It is astonishing that yields are so low,” said Michael Chang, interest rate strategist at Credit Suisse. “The current environment is not like anything we’ve seen before. The Fed’s being very aggressive in quantitative easing, and the fall in yields is the result.”

On Tuesday, the Fed said it would buy $600 billion of mortgage bonds issued or guaranteed by government agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This pushed mortgage rates sharply lower. The lower rates threaten to trigger a wave of refinancing of mortgages, the prospect of which in turn pushes investors to hedge that risk by buying 10-year Treasury debt, a benchmark for many mortgage rates.

Weak economic data released on Wednesday reinforced the gloomy economic outlook and the potential for declines in growth. The latest wave of data showed collapses in new home sales, consumer spending and orders for durable goods in October. Such evidence of crisis in the US economy will fuel the Fed to try and stem declines in growth by pushing interest rates lower.

MP: See chart below illustrating the "quantitative easing" of expansionary growth of M2 and 3-month T-bill yields going to zero.


The Six Miracles of Socialism

1. There's no unemployment, but nobody actually works.

2. No one works, but everyone gets paid.

3. Everyone gets paid, but there's nothing to buy with the money.

4. No one can buy anything, but everyone owns everything.

5. Everyone owns everything, but no one is satisfied.

6. No one is satisfied, but 99% of the people vote for the system.

~Bennett Owen, National Review in 1990

HT: Anonymous


Giving Thanks for Capitalism, The Invisible Hand, the Miracle of the Free Market and No Turkey Czar

You probably didn't call your local supermarket ahead of time and order your Thanksgiving turkey this year, did you? Why not? Because you automatically assumed that a turkey would be there when you showed up, and it probably was there when you showed up "unannounced" at the grocery store to select your bird.

And the reason your Thanksgiving turkey was waiting for you? Because of "spontaneous order," "self-interest," and the "invisible hand" of the free market - "the mysterious power that leads innumerable people, each working for his own gain, to promote ends that benefit many." Even if turkeys appear in grocery stores every Thanksgiving only because of the "selfish greed" or "corporate greed" of turkey farmers and/or supermarkets, it sure works for me.

In a 2003 Boston Globe column titled "Giving Thanks for Capitalism" (available only in the paid archives) Jeff Jacoby explains below why he is thankful for the miracle of the invisible hand that makes turkeys automatically available so efficiently at Thanksgiving:

"The activities of countless people over the course of many months had to be intricately choreographed and precisely timed, so that when you showed up to buy a fresh Thanksgiving turkey, there would be one -- or more likely, a few dozen -- waiting. The level of coordination that was required to pull it off is mind-boggling. But what is even more mind-boggling is this: No one coordinated it.

No turkey czar sat in a command post somewhere, consulting a master plan and issuing orders. No one forced people to cooperate for your benefit. And yet they did cooperate. When you arrived at the supermarket, your turkey was there. You didn't have to do anything but show up to buy it. If that isn't a miracle, what should we call it?

Adam Smith called it "the invisible hand" -- the mysterious power that leads innumerable people, each working for his own gain, to promote ends that benefit many. Out of the seeming chaos of millions of uncoordinated private transactions emerges the spontaneous order of the market. Free human beings freely interact, and the result is an array of goods and services more immense than the human mind can comprehend. No dictator, no bureaucracy, no supercomputer plans it in advance. Indeed, the more an economy *is* planned, the more it is plagued by shortages, dislocation, and failure."

It is commonplace to speak of seeing God's signature in the intricacy of a spider's web or the animation of a beehive. But they pale in comparison to the kaleidoscopic energy and productivity of the free market. If it is a blessing from Heaven when seeds are transformed into grain, how much more of a blessing is it when our private, voluntary exchanges are transformed - without our ever intending it - into prosperity, innovation, and growth?

As economist Steven Landsburg wrote in "Armchair Economics" about the invisible hand: "It is something of a miracle that individual selfish decisions lead to collectively efficient outcomes."

Important Economic Lessons from Thanksgiving

There are some important, but often overlooked economic lessons about our celebration tomorrow of Thanksgiving: private property rights, the tragedy of the commons, the failure of communal farming, socialism vs. capitalism, and the triumph of the free enterprise system. Read about it here.

Fiscal Stimulus: Permanent, Pervasive, Predictable versus Temporary, Targeted and Timely


The incoming Obama administration and congressional Democrats are now considering a second fiscal stimulus package, estimated at more than $500 billion, to follow the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. As they do, much can be learned by examining the first.

The argument in favor of these temporary rebate payments was that they would increase consumption, stimulate aggregate demand, and thereby get the economy growing again. What were the results? The chart above reveals the answer.

The upper line shows disposable personal income through September. Disposable personal income is what households have left after paying taxes and receiving transfers from the government. The big blip is due to the rebate payments in May through July. The lower line shows personal consumption expenditures by households. Observe that consumption shows no noticeable increase at the time of the rebate. Hence, by this simple measure, the rebate did little or nothing to stimulate consumption, overall aggregate demand, or the economy.

What are the implications for a second stimulus early next year? The mantra often heard during debates about the first stimulus was that it should be temporary, targeted and timely. Clearly, that mantra must be replaced. In testimony before the Senate Budget Committee on Nov. 19, I recommended alternative principles: permanent, pervasive and predictable.

The theory that a short-run government spending stimulus will jump-start the economy is based on old-fashioned, largely static Keynesian theories. These approaches do not adequately account for the complex dynamics of a modern international economy, or for expectations of the future that are now built into decisions in virtually every market.

~Stanford economics professor John Taylor, in yesterday's WSJ

On Greg Mankiw's blog, others have suggested that the fiscal stimulus will be: a) pointless, political, and pork-filled; b) clumsy, corrupt, and counterproductive; or c) expansive, extensive, and expensive.

FDIC Special: Buy a Toaster and Get a Free Bank


Mets Stadium = Citi/Taxpayer Field?

NEW YORK (AP) -- Two New York City Council members say that Citigroup should show its thanks for a federal bailout by sharing the naming rights to the new Mets ballpark in Queens. The struggling bank is slated to pay $400 million over the next 20 years to name the stadium Citi Field.

The bank made the commitment years ago, when it was flush with cash. Now that Citigroup is getting billions of dollars in federal aid, Staten Island Republicans Vincent Ignizio and Jim Oddo say the ballpark’s name should be changed to Citi/Taxpayer Field.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

How About First Comparing Today to Early 1980s?


A Google News search shows that the phrase "since the 1930s" has been used 6,223 times in the last month, and the phrase "since the Great Depression" has been used more than 14,000 times in the last month, and most of these news references are comparisons of today's economic and financial conditions to the 1930s and the Great Depression. In contrast, the phrase "since the 1980s" has been used only 1,588 times in the last month.

Here's one problem: By comparing today's economic conditions to the 1930s and the Great Depression, the news media has apparently skipped the terrible economic conditions of the early 1980s and gone all the way back 75 years to the 1930s, without a comparison to a more recent period like the early 1980s. Consider for example the following comparisons of key economic variables today to the peaks for those variable in the early 1980s (and see graph above):

Prime Rate
1981: 20.5%
2008: 4% (Current)

Inflation
1980: 14.8%
2008: 3.7% (October)

Unemployment Rate
1982: 10.8%
2008: 6.5% (October)

30-Year Mortgage Rate
1981: 18.5%
2008: 6.04% (Current)

Real Gas Price (2008 dollars)
1981: $3.45 per gallon
2008: $1.86

Bottom Line: The U.S. economy will certainly continue to experience economic problems and recessionary conditions through the first half of 2009, but a comparison of some of today's key economic variables to the early 1980s suggests that we are not even yet anywhere close to the economic conditions of the early 1980s. For example, the prime rate was 5 times higher in 1980 (20.5%) compared to today (4%), inflation in 1980 was 4 times higher, unemployment was 4.3 percentage points higher, the 30-year mortgage rate was 3 times higher, and
real gas prices were almost twice as expensive as today.

So before we start talking about the "worst economy since the 1930s" couldn't we first use the early 1980s as a benchmark of how bad economic conditions can get during a more recent period?

Harvesting Cash: Obama Wants to End Some Farm Subsidies. How About Ending All Farm Subsidies?

CHICAGO (Reuters) - President-elect Barack Obama vowed on Tuesday to cut billions of dollars from wasteful government programs as he sought to reassure Americans anxious about a growing mountain of debt and a faltering economy


"We cannot sustain a system that bleeds billions of taxpayer dollars on programs that have outlived their usefulness or exist solely because of the power of a politician, lobbyist or interest group," Obama said. An obvious example, Obama said, were reports of crop subsidies to farmers who make more than $2.5 million per year.

MP: That's a good start Mr. Obama, but what about ending subsidies for farmers who make more than $0 per year?


MLB First: Cricket Players From India Signed

USA TODAY -- Dinesh Patel and Rinku Singh, two 19-year-old cricket players from small villages in India who had not picked up a baseball until April, on Monday became the first athletes from India to sign professional baseball contracts, agreeing to deals with the Pittsburgh Pirates.

HT: Sanil Kori

'Liar's Poker' Author Sees Upside To Market Crash

When Michael Lewis looks back on the Wall Street he wrote about in his 1989 best-seller, Liar's Poker, the street looks positively quaint. At the time, it was shocking that an investment bank CEO made $3 million a year.

The current crash is different — very different. Michael Lewis says he didn't appreciate its distinctions until he began doing research four or five months ago. "The size of the problem is massive," Lewis notes. "Not only did trillions — trillions — of dollars get lent to people who won't be able to repay them, but Wall Street at the same time created a market in side bets about whether these people would be able to repay their loans. And that market in side bets is tens of trillions of dollars."

I don't think, going forward, you will see people working at a place called Goldman Sachs taking home $70 million or $80 million at the end of each year, which they have done in the past." Such earnings are unwarranted, Lewis says. "One of the madnesses of the last 25 years … has been the rewards we've bestowed on financiers," he says. "The people who have actually been allocating the capital on Wall Street have done a rather bad job of it. … The idea that these are essentially the highest-paying corporate jobs in America, by far, seems to me insane."

Those rewards have had "a really distorting effect" on society, Lewis says, creating a new norm for personal financial rewards for CEOs of all stripes. "That's going to be gone."


Excerpts from today's NPR story and interview

More Economic Freedom = Lower Jobless Rate

SAN FRANCISCOThe Pacific Research Institute (PRI), a free-market think tank based in California, recently released the U.S. Economic Freedom Index: 2008 Report, a ranking of economic freedom in the 50 states. Published in association with Forbes, the Index scores states based on 143 variables, including regulatory and fiscal obstacles imposed on businesses and residents.

South Dakota, which ranked 15 in 2004 (the last time the Index was published), has assumed the notable spot as the nation’s most economically free state, while New York consistently remains the most economically oppressed state, ranking 50 in all three editions of the Index.

The net migration rate for the 20 freest states was 27.36 people per 1,000, while it was a low 1.17 people per 1,000 for the 20 most economically oppressed states. “People are moving to the freest states and fleeing the least free states as our market-based migration metric of economic freedom predicts,” said Lawrence J. McQuillan, Ph.D., director of Business and Economic Studies at PRI and director of the project.

“By measuring economic freedom and studying its effects, people will gain a fuller appreciation of the important imprint it makes on the economic and political fabric of America and will encourage new state legislation that advances economic liberty.

The Index score ranges from 1 (most free) to 50 (least free), and state rankings were derived from the index scores. The Index collected and ranked 143 indicators comprised of 209 underlying variables from five sectors (fiscal, regulatory, judicial, size of government, and welfare spending) for each state to measure how friendly, or unfriendly, each state’s government policies are toward free enterprise and consumer choice.

MP: The chart above shows my own analysis of the the average unemployment rates for each of the four quartiles of states (state unemployment rates here), ranked by economic freedom. For the quartile of states that are most economically free, the October 2008 unemployment rate was 4.7%, compared to the 6.7% average jobless rate for the quartile of states that are the least economically free.

Bottom Line: The more economically free a state is, the lower its unemployment rate. The less economically free a state is, the higher its unemployment rate. The difference in average unemployment rates between the quartile of states with the greatest economic freedom and the quartile of states with the least economic freedom is a whopping 2%.

HT: Joe Armendariz

Monday, November 24, 2008

Quote of the Day

When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it. But when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind: it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the
matter may be.


~Lord Kelvin, 19th-century British physicist

Gas Update: $317.4 Billion Annual Savings

National Average: $1.89 (lowest price since February 2005)

National Low: $1.35 in Kansas City

Estimated Annual Savings: $317.4 billion, based on the drop in gas prices from the peak of $4.12 per gallon in July to the current $1.89 ($1.4235 billion annual savings for American consumers and businesses per penny decrease in gas prices, see calculations here).

Shouldn't We Be Putting Kids Before Unions?

Democrats are fervent supporters of public education, and the party genuinely wants to help disadvantaged kids stuck in bad schools. But it resists bold action. The explanation lies in its longstanding alliance with the teachers' unions -- which, with more than three million members, tons of money and legions of activists, are among the most powerful groups in American politics. The Democrats benefit enormously from all this firepower, and they know what they need to do to keep it. They need to stay inside the box.

And they have done just that. Democrats favor educational "change" -- as long as it doesn't affect anyone's job, reallocate resources, or otherwise threaten the occupational interests of the adults running the system. Most changes of real consequence are therefore off the table. The party specializes instead in proposals that involve spending more money and hiring more teachers -- such as reductions in class size, across-the-board raises and huge new programs like universal preschool. These efforts probably have some benefits for kids. But they come at an exorbitant price, both in dollars and opportunities foregone, and purposely ignore the fundamentals that need to be addressed.

Democrats have to get serious about school choice. The unions oppose it because they don't want one student or one dollar to leave the regular public schools, where their members teach. So the Democrats have been timid and weak in putting choice to productive use -- even though their constituents are the ones trapped in deplorably bad urban schools, whose futures are being ruined, and who are desperate for new educational opportunities.

If children were their sole concern, Democrats would be the champions of school choice. They would help parents put their kids into whatever good schools are out there, including private schools. They would vastly increase the number of charter schools. They would see competition as healthy and necessary for the regular public schools, which should never be allowed to take kids and money for granted.

It all boils down to a simple question. Will President Obama have the courage to unite with the rebels inside his party, champion the interests of children over the interests of adults, and be a true leader who really means it when he talks about change? We can only stay tuned. And have the audacity of hope.

~Terry Moe, Professor of Political Science at Stanford University, writing in today's WSJ

Anti-Choice Obamas Choose $30k Sidwell Option

Michelle and Barack Obama have settled on a Washington, D.C., school for their daughters, and you will not be surprised to learn it is not a public institution. Malia, age 10, and seven-year-old Sasha will attend the Sidwell Friends School, the private academy that educates the children of much of Washington's elite at a cost of almost $30,000 per year for tuition.

A number of great schools were considered," said Katie McCormick Lelyveld, a spokeswoman for Mrs. Obama. "In the end, the Obamas selected the school that was the best fit for what their daughters need right now."

Note the word "selected," as in made a choice. The Obamas are fortunate to have the means to send their daughters to private school, and no one begrudges them that choice given that Washington's public schools are among the worst in America.

Most D.C. parents would also love to be able to choose a better school for their child, but they lack the financial means to do so. The Washington Opportunity Scholarship Program each year offers up to $7,500 to some 1,900 kids to attend private schools, but Democrats in Congress want to kill it. Average family income for kids in the voucher program is about $22,000.

Mr. Obama says he opposes such vouchers, because "although it might benefit some kids at the top, what you're going to do is leave a lot of kids at the bottom." The example of his own children refutes that: The current system offers plenty of choice to kids "at the top" while abandoning those at the bottom.

~Wall Street Journal

More On Total Hourly Labor Costs: GM vs. Toyota


ASSOCIATED PRESS -- The leaders of GM and the UAW told Congress last week that a new union contract will virtually erase the labor cost gap between GM and foreign competitors with U.S. factories. That's not quite true, according to GM's own figures.

GM says its total hourly labor costs dropped 6% this year from $73.26 in 2006 to around $69 per hour. The new cost includes wages of $29.78 per hour, plus benefits, pensions and the cost of providing health care to more than 432,000 GM retirees, GM spokesman Tony Sapienza said. The total cost will drop to $62 per hour in 2010 when the linchpin of the new contract - a UAW administered trust fund - starts paying retiree health care costs.

But that's still $9 more than the $53 per hour that GM estimated Toyota now pays in the United States, and the gap could be even wider. Toyota spokesman Mike Goss said the company's total labour costs at its older U.S. plants are around $48, with about $30 per hour in wages (see chart above).

The remaining difference largely is due to "legacy" costs, the cost of a 100-year-old company paying its retiree pensions, Sapienza said. "While legacy seems to be a dirty word of late, it also means we support hundreds of thousands of people via pensions, health care and good jobs," he said.

There's also the "jobs bank," a feature of the UAW contract that drew fire from senators, in which workers get 95% of their base pay and all of their benefits if they are laid off or their plant is closed. In the past, workers could stay in the jobs bank forever unless they turn down two job offers within 50 miles of their factory. GM's new contract imposes a two-year time limit, and workers are out of the jobs bank if they turn down one job within 50 miles or four jobs anywhere in the country. GM has about 1,000 workers in the jobs bank now because it's been thinned out by early retirement and buyout offers. At its peak, the jobs bank had 7,000 to 8,000 people, Sapienza said.

Bottom Line: Even with the new contract, there will still be about a $14 per hour pay gap in total labor costs between GM ($62) and Toyota ($48), and more than a 29% total labor cost premium for UAW workers compared to their nonunion counterparts at Toyota.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Some Lessons From the Great Depression

UCLA Newsroom (2004) -- Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt. After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August 2004 issue of the Journal of Political Economy (working paper version here), Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."

"The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes," Cole said. "Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

HT: "1"

P.J. O'Rourke on Government "Charity"

Charity is one of the great responsibilities of freedom. But, in order for us to be responsible - and therefore free - that responsibility must be personal.

There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money - if a gun is held to his head.

When government quits being something we use only in an emergency and becomes the principal source of aid and assistance in our society, then the size, expense and power of government are greatly increased. The decision that politicians are wiser, kinder and more honest than we are and that they, not we, should control the dispensation of eleemosynary goods and services is, in itself, a diminishment of the individual and proof that we're jerks.

Government charity causes other problems. If responsibility is removed from friends, family and self, social ties are weakened. We don't have to look after our parents; they've got their Social Security check and are down in Atlantic City with it right no w. Parents don't have to look after their kids; Head Start, a high school guidance counselor and AmeriCorps take care of that. Our kids don't have to look after themselves; if they become addicted to drugs, there's methadone, and if they get knocked up, t here's always AFDC. The neighbors, meanwhile, aren't going to get involved; if they step outside, they'll be cut down by the 9mm crossfire from the drug wars between the gangs all the other neighbors belong to.

Making charity part of the political system confuses the mission of government. Charity is, by its nature, approximate and imprecise. Are you guiding the old lady across the street or are you just jerking her around? It's hard to know when enough charity has been given. Parents want to give children every material advantage but don't want a pack of spoiled brats. There are no exact rules of charity. But a government in a free society must obey exact rules or that government's power is arbitrary and freedom is lost. This is why government works best when it is given limited and well-defined tasks to perform.


~P.J. O'Rourke

Real GDP Fell by 29.3% From 1930 to 1933

The chart above displays annual real GDP growth from 1928-1945 (data here), showing the -29.3% cumulative drop in real GDP between 1930 and 1933 during the Great Depression. That would be like today's real GDP going from the current level of $14.5 trillion back to the level of real output in 1996. And that seems highly unlikely.