I respect the management of Google. They are not tied to conventional ways of thinking. When they bought huge amounts of dark fiber (fiber optic cable that had been laid down in the internet bubble period, but was sitting unused). I figured they had made good investments while the cable was very cheap (pennies on the dollar). I watch with interest as they continue to build their own (with partners) fiber network. I am guessing this may be partially because they are smart enough to know the business oligopolies providing internet infrastructure will try to exploit their positions and government cannot be counted out to play their proper regulatory role, which is required in a capitalist system. And partially due to their huge bandwidth needs and projections for future growth.
And since those oligopolies are not very effective companies (that rely largely on paying politicians, in order to undermine the proper role of government in a capitalist system, to gain government granted monopolist profits). That increases the benefit of Google buying into their own distribution network since excess capacity can likely be sold at a large profit: the competing companies are so used to charging monopoly prices leaving lots of room for profit. The second point can be debated but I don’t think if the economy functioned properly, with intelligently regulated natural monopolies providing internet bandwidth, I doubt Google would invest in this, but, of course, I could be wrong.
About the Unity bandwidth consortium
Google stretching underwater comms cable?
…
Meanwhile, ITWeb reports that Google is looking to run a third underwater cable to South Africa.
Related: Monopolies and Oligopolies do not a Free Market Make - Challenges in Laying Internet Fiber Under Oceans - Plugging America’s Broadband Gap - Not Understanding Capitalism
Forecasting oil futures by Justin Wolfers (Wharton School, Univ. of Pennsylvania) on Marketplace (a great show by the way)
Others ignore the professional forecasters and focus instead on what futures markets are saying. But it turns out that even futures prices are not as accurate as our simple formula. Even sophisticated econometric models don’t yield better forecasts than our simple no-change rule.
The truth is that forecasting oil prices is so darn hard that complicated formulae add nothing but complexity. And so the simplest forecasting rule also turns out to be the best.
This is another example of how tricky it is to predict financial markets. I am a bit surprised for relatively longer periods (like a year) the professionals do so poorly. My father, a statistician (among other things), challenged me to predict the movement of stocks on a daily basis better than his prediction (which was no change). I can’t remember the result - which makes me think I failed. I think I would be more likely to remember if I succeeded.
Related: Prediction Markets at Google - Illusion of Explanatory Depth - 30 Year Fixed Mortgage Rates Graph - Randomization in Sports
Pretty much everyone (certainly the vast majority of regulators and politicians) have no clue about capitalism. The concept that a “free market” should be allowed to operate is theoretical, based on “perfect competition” (which essentially means zero barriers to entry). Obviously the politicians support, not capitalism (which would require regulation of imperfect markets (and certainly not support consolidation past the point of many competing companies), but the idea that those with the gold make the rules. Natural monopolies (like gas distribution, electricity, likely internet infrastructure…) should be fully regulated companies which then have the infrastructure accessed by multiple competitors (none of which own the natural monopoly - of course).
With some market that is even remotely in the area where a capitalist free market was in place, it is very simple to not have to deal with companies that treat customers horribly (like Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable…) you just chose another company to deal with.
But these companies want to have the government allow them to create a monopoly (or something extremely close) and then claim to be in favor of capitalism (and further make ludicrous claims about what capitalism would suggest about regulation in oligopolistic markets). These ideas is so laughable that if politicians had even a sense of economic understanding they would adopt the appropriate capitalist response (for government).
Obviously, regulation is required as the market moves away from the area of “perfect competition.” When some huge company wants to buy some other huge company (say creating greater than 10% of the market combined) this would be rejected. If the market is a natural monopoly where the free market is not the proper capitalist market (such as one where the government would allow the proper capitalist response to players in the market attempting to break the free market by gaining to much control), then, of course a regulated natural monopoly would take on that economic task. This is not really complicated stuff.
Read more
Central bank intervention … unprecedented in scale and scope by Brad Setser
…
As around $900b, the fed’s balance sheet is something like 6-7% of US GDP. With $1600b in foreign assets, the PBoC’s external balance sheet alone is more like 50% of China’s GDP.
…
But with Martin Wolf now arguing that scenarios with more than a trillion in credit market losses cannot be ruled out – even more unprecedented central bank — and government — action cannot be entirely ruled out. The scale of the “great unwind” has been stunning. The pace of change in the policy debate only slightly less so.
Related: Fed takes leap towards the unthinkable - Goldman Sachs Rakes In Profit in Credit Crisis - Misuse of Statistics: Mania in Financial Markets - Why do we Have a Federal Reserve Board?