So few economists foresaw the current credit disaster, New York Times interview of James Galbraith.
Dr. Galbraith: Ten or 12 would be closer than two or three.
NYT: What does that say about the field of economics, which claims to be a science?
Dr. Galbraith: It’s an enormous blot on the reputation of the profession. There are thousands of economists. Most of them teach. And most of them teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless.
NYT: You’re referring to the Washington-based conservative philosophy that rejects government regulation in favor of free-market worship?
Dr. Galbraith: Reagan’s economists worshiped the market, but Bush didn’t worship the market. Bush simply turned over regulatory authority to his friends. It enabled all the shady operators and card sharks in the system to come to dominate how we finance.
Related: Rodgers on the US and Chinese Economies – Greenspan Says He Was Wrong On Regulation – Leverage, Complex Deals and Mania – What is Economics?
In a recent article in Business Week Michael E. Porter makes some excellent points – Why America Needs an Economic Strategy:
Second, U.S. entrepreneurship has been fed by a science, technology, and innovation machine that remains by far the best in the world. While other countries increase their spending on research and development, the U.S. remains uniquely good at coaxing innovation out of its research and translating those innovations into commercial products.
…
Third, the U.S. has the world’s best institutions for higher learning, and they are getting stronger. They equip students with highly advanced skills and act as magnets for global talent, while playing a critical role in innovation and spinning off new businesses.
Fourth, America has been the country with the strongest commitment to competition and free markets.
…
An inadequate rate of reinvestment in science and technology is hampering America’s feeder system for entrepreneurship. Research and development as a share of GDP has actually declined, while it has risen in many other countries.
…
A creeping relaxation of antitrust enforcement has allowed mergers to dominate markets. Ironically, these mergers are often justified by “free market” rhetoric. The U.S. is seeing more intervention in competition, with protectionism and favoritism on the rise. Few Americans know that the U.S. ranks only 20th among countries in openness to capital flows, 21st on low trade barriers, and 35th on absence of distortions from taxes and subsidies
I have discussed similar idea in this blog and the Curious Cat Science and Engineering Blog: The Future is Engineering – Engineering the Future Economy – Science Gap – Not Understanding Capitalism
As many as 10,000 corrupt government officials have fled China with $100 billion.
More unexpected, however, was the heavy press coverage that Yang’s walkabout attracted in a country where the government is generally reluctant to wash its dirty linens in public. That suggests that “the government is sending a signal” that it regards “the number of officials fleeing as a very important problem which needs to be solved,” says Mao Zhaohui, director of anticorruption studies at Beijing’s Renmin University.
Corruption is pervasive at almost every level of the government, and it is a major factor eroding faith in the ruling Communist Party. Earlier this year, after thousands of schoolchildren died in the Sichuan earthquake, the Internet was ablaze with accusations that local officials had taken bribes to approve substandard materials for school construction.
Chinese President Hu Jintao has repeatedly declared that the fight against fraud is a top government priority and courts have handed down heavy sentences against prominent offenders. Last year, the former head of the Chinese Food and Drug Administration, Zheng Xiaoyu, was executed after being found guilty of taking bribes to approve thousands of new drugs.
China has many strong winds for economic growth. Corruption is an anchor holding back their progress.
Related: Capitalism in China – Not Understanding Capitalism – Oil Consumption by Country – Data on Leading Manufacturing Countries – Curious Cat Economics Search Engine
Greenspan Says He Was Wrong On Regulation
…
Even Greenspan seemed genuinely perplexed yesterday by all that had happened, hard-pressed to explain how formerly fundamental truths about how markets work could have proved so wrong.
…
“When bubbles cause huge problems is when they cause the financial sector to seize up,” said Frederic S. Mishkin, a Columbia University economist and, until recently, Fed governor. “The right way to deal with that kind of bubble is not with monetary policy,” but with bank supervision and other regulatory powers.
…
While endorsing some expanded regulation yesterday, such as requiring the companies that combine large numbers of loans into securities to hold on to significant numbers of those securities, he also repeatedly retreated to his libertarian-leaning roots, and warned of the dangers of overreacting.
…
“I made a mistake,” Greenspan said, “in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms.”
The key is to strive for properly functioning markets. Unfortunately that does not mean allowing those that give large payments to politicians to foist huge risks on the economy by exempting themselves from sensible regulation. I guess some people get confused that the benefits of “free markets” are not the same as standing back and allowing powerful interests to manipulate markets and risk economies. The benefits of a free market are provided to the economy when the market is free not when large, powerful organizations are allowed to exert undue influence on markets.
I don’t really understand how people could think “free markets” are about letting special interests be free to manipulate markets. It is not really something that should be confusing to people that have thought enough to have an opinion on the benefits of free markets. The dangers of monopolies and business people conspiring to extract benefit (for those in the cartel, trust, conspiracy…) by manipulating the market was well know from the initial minds putting together capitalist theory. And the obvious method to allow the benefits of the free market to be maintained was regulation to prevent those that sought to manipulate the market for their benefit.
And the dangers of overly leveraged financial institutions should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of understanding of financial history. Then make those overly leveraged financial institutions large (too be to fail) types and you really are asking for disaster. Add in a extremely large use of debt by the public and private sectors (living beyond your means). Then throw in encouraging reckless short term thinking by providing enormous cash bonuses for paper potential profits and you really have to wonder how anyone could think this was not a perfect design to assure a financial meltdown.
Related: Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist – Fed to Loan AIG $85 Billion in Rescue – 2nd Largest Bank Failure in USA History
Anyone involved in finance should understand mania in the markets. It is not a shock that financial markets do irrational things. They do so very frequently. Anyone who has not read, Manias, Panics, and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises, should do so. Leverage often is a catalyst that turns bad investments into panics that damage the economy. A previous post on this topic: Misuse of Statistics – Mania in Financial Markets.
Enron was the pit canary, but its death went unheeded
As for the lessons we’ve forgotten, how about this one: financial statements aren’t supposed to be fairytales.
…
when all was booming, Wall Streeters said they deserved their pay because the market said they were worth it. But now things are falling apart, they say the market doesn’t work, and we need to stop short-selling, and taxpayers need to pony up. If there is a tiny bit of good in all this, it’s that Wall Street, although it was complicit in the Enron mess, managed to walk away relatively unscathed. This time, Wall Street has brought itself down.
I think the odds that Wall Street has brought itself down is very low. Even that the ludicrous excesses of Wall Street are at risk is very unlikely. Perhaps for a few years their might be some restraints put on excesses. But most likely politicians will respond to huge payments by arranging favors for those that want to bring excesses back. If this can be prevented that would be great, but I doubt it will.
Related: Investing books – Tilting at Ludicrous CEO Pay – Losses Covered Up to Protect Bonuses
re: New Rule: If your company is to big to fail, your company is too big to exist. The next Prez. needs to split up huge companies like we did with AT&T.
Exactly right. Companies too big to fail have massive negative externalities that should be managed through regulation. And the discussion (see link) of this claiming that the huge, anti-capitalist, companies that exist now are not monopolies and therefore anti-trust laws should not be used makes no sense. Anti-trust laws are not for monopolies. Trusts were huge anti-competitive organizations that sought to eliminate the free market and extract benefits by distorting the market. Those laws were adopted not to regulate monopolies but to regulate anti-competitive behavior.
The free market theory formulated by Adam Smith et.al. was based on perfect competition where no one entity could influence the market. In reality that is not possible but approximations of it can exist (we are far from such a state today, however). Fine, the anti-capitalist large corporations are not monopolies – they are oligopolistic that can still extract profits through their ability to distort the free market. Is the fact they are not a monopoly really that relevant?
Enforcing rules that prevent businesses from using their size and power to extract outsized profits is the right thing to do. Anti-trust laws are the proper tool. when politicians are paid lots of money by people with the gold to allow them to cripple the free market and create large corporations that profit, not by competing in a free market, but by manipulating the market that is a bad practice. It won’t change until people stop electing politicians that reward those that pay them for favors. And that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
What we can hope is that there is some limit on how egregious the favors politicians grant those paying them money are. Maybe this latest escapade (and the costs of those favors to bankers) will cause a reduction in the favors granted. I don’t have high expectations for the changes though.
Read more
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?