Economic Theory

Megan McCardle is trying to spark an interesting discussion on economic theory in light of the financial crisis. I added my 2 cents to the comments, which are:

If followed, the right theory will never come in contact with the enemy, because it will tell policy makers how to avoid such contact. Milton Friedman's theory on monetary policy took hold in the 80's and have been the basis of world monetary policy ever since. No one is discarding Milton Friedman's monetary policy theories because of this crisis. In fact, all policy makers are building their bailout policies in accordance with that theory because of its strength. So, if his theories are so sound, why did the theory come in contact with the enemy? Because his theories on government fiscal policy have been ignored for 70+ years, and to be fair his theories on government fiscal policies while strong are more ideological rather than based upon a theoretical framework. Economists need to provide a strong theoretical framework which shows that Milton Friedman's views on government fiscal policy are theoretically just as strong as his theories on monetary policy.

Bad Management

Some have argued that the free market is to blame for the financial crisis because greedy corporate managers have acted irresponsibly, and taken on risk that exposed their companies to huge losses. My response is that is all true except for the part where the blame is placed on the free market. Our government and not the free market is responsible for fostering the climate where these corporate managers could act irresponsibly without the fear of being punished by the free market. Our government did this by insulating corporate managers from the fear that if they acted irresponsibly their company would be taken over and they would be fired for their irresponsible incompetence:

If managers are misusing a corporation’s assets, there will be profit opportunities for the alert investor who figures it out, buys up a controlling share of stock, and replaces the managers with better ones. This is a hostile takeover....

The takeover is a key tool in what Henry Manne, the great economist and former dean of the George Mason University Law School, long ago dubbed the market for corporate control....

...the federal and state governments have done all they could to prevent corporate takeovers. In 1968 the federal government enacted a law forcing anyone who acquires a specified amount of a corporation’s shares (today it’s 5 percent) to disclose his intentions to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Obviously, if someone announces that he intends a takeover, the stock price will rise, wiping out the profit in the takeover. That was the point.

...managers who feared losing their jobs lobbied Congress and the president. It was special-interest, protectionist legislation all the way....

In the 1980s the states and state courts enacted even harsher anti-takeover measures. The result? “The number of hostile tender offers dropped precipitously and with it the most effective device for policing top managers of large, publicly held companies,” Manne writes.

The article that I linked to was written in 2002. I believe that further corporate managers protection laws were enacted after that article was written in 2002.

Money Supply Contraction

In the Wall Street Journal, Andy Kessler writes:

...after the 1929 market crash and subsequent bank runs, 10,000 or roughly 40% of banks failed, $2 billion in deposits were wiped out and 30% of the money supply disappeared. So did a similar percentage of GDP. Today, bank deposits are mostly safe, but with $1 trillion in bank and Wall Street writedowns taken or soon to be taken on bad real estate securities, some multiple of that in money supply will vanish with the stroke of an accountant's pen. Restarting bank lending is the only way to top it back up.

The contraction in the money supply is what will trigger the depression. It must be avoided. Desperate times call for desperate meaures.

A good start, but not enough

This is a good start, but John McCain has got to do more to convince the undecided voters that the economy will do better under his presidency than Obama's:

Sen. John McCain today proposed $52 billion in tax breaks aimed at reducing the impact of stock market losses on the nation's seniors, providing relief to the unemployed and encouraging savings.

Furthermore, this probably will not win him any votes, but it is good to see that realizes that the government should not have any financial interest in the banks any longer than is necessary.

McCain's made his tax cut proposals as President Bush announced an historic $250 billion plan to have the federal government inject money into the economy by directly investing in private banks.

McCain did not directly comment on the president's announcement. But he warned that as president he would require that government investment end once the private banks and institutions are restructured and healthy.

I could be wrong, but I doubt that it is a view that is shared by Obama.

John Maynard Keynes

Robert Skidelsky, a John Maynard Keynes biographer, writes in the Washington Post:

So mainstream theory has no explanation of why things have gone so horribly wrong. To understand how markets can generate their own hurricanes we need to return to John Maynard Keynes.

I wonder if this author is an economist, because I do not think he knows what he is talking about. For example, take the following passage:

...Keynes's insights should not be tossed away as old garbage. At the very least we can say that we have no warrant for basing economics on assumptions that are so often discredited by events.

The reason that "Keynes's insights" regarding monetary policy were "tossed away like old garbage" was because they were "discredited by events".

Furthermore, even though its true that economist have forsaken Keynesian monetary policy, America has had an unbroken string of 70+ years of Keynesian fiscal policy. In fact, small parts of the Keynesian fiscal policy might have been the cause of this financial crisis. Additionally, regardless of whether it was the cause, Keynesian fiscal policy has robbed America of the flexibility it needs to address this problem.

Hopefully, this crisis will be the final nail in the coffin of Keynesian fiscal policy. However, that is unlikely. Instead, America is likely to see a rapid expansion of Keynesian fiscal policy.

Update: Apparently, he is an economist, and a very accomplished one at that. Which makes his defense of Keynes bizarre.

Better late than never

David Brooks may be getting over his man crush on Obama just in time to help fight the ideological battle against encroaching socialism:

...Democrats will probably be running the government.... What we’re going to see, in short, is the Gingrich revolution in reverse and on steroids. There will be a big increase in spending and deficits. In normal times, moderates could have restrained the zeal on the left. In an economic crisis, not a chance. The over-reach is coming. The backlash is next.

I just hope that it is not too late.

Fear and Hysteria can be rational

I have seen numerous articles (here, here, etc.) bemoaning the perceived fear and hysteria in the American people. In defense of the American people, their actions have been a rational response to the known facts. The known facts are:

• American wealth has been lost.
• Additional wealth remains at risk.
• Through taxes, laws and regulations the government can affect the value of wealth.
• America is in the middle of an election.
• It seems probable that the Democratic Party will come out of the election with unchecked political control.
• The Democratic party believes that economic restrictive laws and regulations, and some high taxes benefit society.
• Taxes, laws and regulations that the Democratic party prefer reduce the value of wealth.
• The Republican party believes in cutting taxes, and easing the economic burden of restrictive laws and regulations.
• Cutting taxes, and easing the economic burden of restrictive laws and regulations increase the value of wealth.
• Just because something is probable does not mean that it is a foregone conclusion.
• People respond to their own self interest.

All of these facts create a large incentive for those who do not want to see anymore American wealth destroyed to become very vocal in their attempt to educate others about the cost of the election so that they might feel it is in their self interest to vote Republican rather than Democratic. Additionally, those who are selling or refusing to buy assets are doing so not out of fear or hysteria, but in a rational attempt to protect as much of their wealth as they can.

More wealth destruction from Obama

The AP reports:

Democratic Barack Obama on Monday... propos[ed] a 90-day moratorium on home foreclosures at some banks....

If enacted, this policy would make it harder and more costly for banks to foreclose on non paying home owners. By increasing the cost of foreclosure, the policy would reduce the value of the asset. The reduction in the value of the asset would show up as a net loss of wealth for the bank and society as a whole. The intrinsic destruction of wealth is the root cause of America's (and the world's) current financial crisis.

Obama has noble goals, but he can not see that how he would achieve these goals could worsen the root causes of the current financial crisis. The American people need to ask themselves, do they want to help non paying home owners stay in their home, or do they want to stop the cycle of wealth destruction that is leading America to the precipice of economic ruin. Obama and Democrats through noble goals and economic ignorance may very well push America over the edge.

Thank you John McCain

Jake Tapper reports:

On Saturday, advisers to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told the Politico's Mike Allen and Jonathan Martin that McCain was "considering additional economic measures aimed directly at the middle class that are likely to be rolled out this week...

Late Sunday, McCain decided no new economic proposals would be forthcoming after all.

John McCain, my friend, thank you for getting my hopes up that you were actually going to attempt to explain to the American people why conservative policies are better than liberal policies for the economy.

Spread the Wealth

Obama is going to spread the wealth. Oh joy indeed. Happy days are here.

It sounds good in practice, but generally, when people try to spread the wealth, they spread poverty instead.

Someone should tell Obama that American wealth is currently in the process of being destroyed, and more is at risk of being destroyed. Furthermore, the mere suggestion that the government may take wealth increases the risk to holding assets which might be confiscated. The increased risk devalues those assets. In essence, wealth is destroyed simply by increasing the expectation that the risk to holding those assets has increased.

In this case, the asset in question is expected future income. Obama is making it clear that he intends to make it less profitable for the wealthy to engage in the work necessary to produce that future income. This decreases their incentive to engage in this work. It also decreases the incentive for the wealthy to consume today based upon the reduced income they expect to generate in the future.

Obama is already making America poorer. I am betting it will only get worse.

Populism and Conservatism

Gregory Rodriguez writes:

...[Sarah Palin's] take-no-prisoners populism is inherently radical; it's at odds not only with McCain's "I'm safe, he's an unknown" strategy but with the very things that conservatism claims to be about: stability, order and tradition.

That is nonsense. American stability has been destroyed by 70 plus years of corrupting government influences in the economy that resulted in the current financial crisis. The lack of stability may get worse not better. It will almost certainly get worse if Democrats gain unchecked political control and increase rather than decrease the corrupting influences of the government on the economy. Conservatives have never believed in an order and a tradition of government control over the economy.

Hence, Sarah Palin's "populism" is in line with what conservatives have been advocating for 70 plus years. The only difference is that the financial crisis has increased the urgency with which conservatives must act to save the wealth and prosperity of America.

How low can you go

Charles Gasparino makes the point that the McCain campaign, Republicans and all conservatives should be making:

The country is headed for recession; the only question is: Just how low can the markets and economy go?

It could be a lot lower - it all depends on the policies of the next president.

And, as it looks increasingly likely that Obama will be that man, the markets are casting a vote of "no confidence."

I guess we should laugh then

History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.
- Karl Marx

America Wake Up!

McCain is proposing economic policies that will help you preserve the value of your wealth. Obama is proposing economic policies that will hasten the destruction of your wealth.

A warning

Taxing the rich, while politically popular, is not very wise. It has adverse economic effects. In normal times, those effects are minor, and it would be wise of Republicans to spend their political capital trying to rid the economy of other laws and regulations that hamper the economy more than high tax rates on the wealthy. However, these are not normal times. Potentially, the most devastating thing the Democrats could do if they get unchecked power is to excessively raise taxes on the wealthy.

The wealthy may may consider the new taxes. Next, they might consider the financial condition of the United States. And then, they might consider the burden of additional taxes they will be expected to bear in the future. And then, they might consider that they have to wealth necessary to migrate. After all this careful consideration, they might decide that the financially wise thing to do is emigrate. If they do it in large numbers, it would be economically devastating to America.

Every Man and Nation for himself

The root cause of the financial crisis is that private entities have come to believe that the inherent risk of their assets is higher than they had previously estimated. An increase in the perceived risk lowers the expected value of the asset. In essence, wealth has been destroyed simply because private entities perceive an increased risk to their assets. The way to solve the crisis is to help private entities lower their perception of the inherent risk of their assets. Unfortunately, chaotic self interest will almost certainly increase the perceived inherent risk of assets:

Iceland's prime minister, Geir Haarde, warned last week that it was now "every country for itself." This smacks of the financial autarchy that characterized defaulters in the financial crisis in Asia in the late 1990s. Similarly, when Argentina defaulted on its debt in 2001-'02, politicians there faced enormous pressure to change the rule of law to benefit domestic property holders over foreigners, and they changed the bankruptcy law to give local debtors the upper hand. In Indonesia and Russia after the crises of 1998, local enterprises and banks took the opportunity of the confusion to grab property, then found ways to ensure that courts sided with them.

Update: This article explains the point I was trying to make above about how value of wealth is lost.

McCain's Economic argument

Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics does not get it:

If you peruse the conservative blogs or listen to talk radio - you can almost feel their anger. There's plenty of blame to go around, they argue. And of course they're right - both parties are to blame - but it doesn't matter.

The average voter doesn't understand the intricacies of economic policy. Heck, when you think about it, nobody really understands the economy. So, voters often rely on simple yet sensible metrics to make political decisions about the economy. One of them has been more or less operative since the election of 1840: if the economy tanks during a Republican administration, vote Democrat. If it tanks during a Democratic administration, vote Republican. Applying this rule to 2008, we get the following. McCain, because he is of the incumbent party, gets the political harm. Obama, because he is of the out party, gets the political benefit. That's all there is to it.

That is not all there is to it. At the beginning of the crisis, Obama's response to the crisis was it is Bush/Republican's fault. McCain's response was let us not blame anyone and hope this subject goes away. When voters hear those two responses, is it any surprise that the issue played to Obama's benefit?

It is true that McCain has started to go on attack on the issue, but he has done it very poorly, and he still has not made the argument that if you think it is bad now, wait till the Democrats are given complete and total political control, it will only get worse. McCain has an economic argument that will turn this financial crisis to his favor, but he has failed to make it so far.

Incidentally, the people who run the McCain campaign and the Obama campaign have almost certainly study the same history that Jay Cost have, and they have probably all learned the same wrong lesson (i.e., nothing that can be done, so find other areas to engage). Consequently, if history ends up repeating itself, the lesson ends up appearing to be true because no attempted to overcome it.

Finally, if Jay Cost is right, the race is over, and there is nothing that McCain can do to change it fortunes, so if they attack Obama on the Economics issue, they really have not lost anything but the time and effort that they invested. Whereas, if I am right, and they take Jay Cost's advice, they have lost their best chance at winning the election. Simple logic dictates that the McCain campaign should be attacking as hard as it can on the economics issue.

Depression versus a recession

Greg Mankiw writes:

There is no official designation of depression. Traditionally, milder contractions are called recessions and more severe contractions are called depressions, but there is no official word on which is which.

A recession is an economic downturn caused by a substanial decrease in the expected rate of inflation. A depression is an economic downturn caused by a substantial contraction in the money supply where people's expected value of wealth decreases instantly due to the money multiplier effect going in reverse.

Unless the destruction of wealth can be quickly stopped and reversed, America is heading for a depression.

Who is John Galt?

Who is John Galt? And, where is he? America desperately needs someone who can save capitalism in America.

For those who do not get the John Galt reference, it comes from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

Update: When I originally wrote this post, I apparently copied the wrong link into the "Who is John Galt" question. That link has now been corrected.

Cut taxes

Greg Mankiw writes:

There is broad agreement among economists that what the financial system needs right now is not only an injection of liquidity but also a recapitalization....

The question for the moment is, How can we get capital back into the
financial system?

All economist should hate the payroll tax. Therefore, as a free market solution, economist should advocate aboloshing the payroll tax as a means of getting capital back into the financial system. It would not go directly into the financial system, but it would definetly free up capital for the financial system. It also might have the added benefit of addressing one of the fundamental causes of the crisis (i.e., falling home prices). Additionally, economist should advocate that the government cut income taxes as much as possible (while adding a small consumption tax for those who pay no income tax). Cutting taxes would add capital to the financial system, but many might be oppossed to cutting taxes for the following reasons:

• Taxes can not be cut without an act of Congress.
• The seriousness of the situation may not allow the time that is need to implement tax cuts.
• The lost tax revenue would add to the deficit.
• The capital added to the economy would not flow directly to the financial system.

Nonetheless, the payroll tax is one of the most economic inefficient taxes this nation has to bear. If this crisis can be used to get rid of it, economist should jump at the opportunity.