Powell Center for Economic Literacy – AP Economics Teachers Conference

Tomorrow morning I board a plane from Zurich to Virginia, which in addition to being a key battle ground state in next week’s election, is home of the Richmond Federal Reserve Bank. The Fed is hosting the National AP Economics Teachers Conference from Sunday through Tuesday, and I am lucky enough to get to attend this year.

This biennial national conference offers a forum for networking with other AP Economics teachers from across the country, updates on topics of interest, demonstrations of effective teaching techniques, as well as outstanding keynote speakers.

Keynote speakers will include Tim Harford, Columnist with Financial Times and best-selling author of The Undercover Economist and The Logic of Life; Federal Reserve Board Governor Kevin Warsh, appointed to the Board in 2006 and formerly Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Executive Secretary of the National Economic Council from 2002 until February 2006; and Dr. J. Alfred Broaddus, Past President, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.

I plan to write a post for each of the four main workshops at this conference: “Demystifying macroeconomics”, “Demystifying microeconomics”, “Technology in the Econ classroom”, and “Understanding exchange rates and the value of the dollar”. Stay tuned for some great posts from an amazing professional development experience for economics teachers.

Shop Talk – Buying local, good idea?

I live two lives. In one, I’m an international school teacher who has lived and taught in three countries, travels around the world for work and play and flies 50,000 miles a year to and from the US, Europe and Asia. In my other life, I am a small town guy, who enjoys working in his yard in his mountain cabin tucked back in the woods of remote Northern Idaho, which is not so much a state as a “state of mind”, as the locals like to say.

When I’m in my “other” life as a small town homeowner, i.e. during my long summer breaks, I like to slow things down and reflect on the state of the world around me. I start to notice things about the local economy that seem so minute in the world of international travel that occupies 10 months of my year. I notice that twice a week farmers come to my small town of Sandpoint, Idaho, to sell their produce, bread, honey, arts and crafts, eggs and even meat. I notice that the buffalo, elk and cattle roaming the valley below my mountain cabin can be bought ready to grill and eat from the local butcher shop. I notice the local brewery, Laughing Dog, where I can buy my home town brew. I notice the natural foods market, where my wife and I do all of our shopping, and where many of the items for sale were grown locally or in the greater Pacific Northwest region.

I notice that, if one so wished to do so, one could sustain oneself almost entirely on locally or regionally grown food items. Compared to the lives of so many Americans, whose foods are so heavily processed, often times shipped from around the country or even the world, the choices available to those who chose to “buy local” seem so simple and straightforward, the benefits so obvious.

So the question is, why don’t more people eat locally? According to economist Russell Roberts, the reason we don’t all survive entirely on locally grown food is that, simply stated, the cost of doing so is too high.

In the article below, a Vermont magazine discusses he “buy-local” movement going on in communities across America today with Russ Roberts, whose enthusiasm for buying local is tempered by his economic rationale rooted in the basic economic principles of opportunity cost, specialization, and the gains from trade.

SEVEN DAYS: You’ve said that the buy-local movement has a “superficial appeal.”

RUSSELL ROBERTS: The emotional, nonmonetary appeal of “buy local” is very clear. It’s nice to buy things from people you know, and often that interaction of shopping and trading with people you know enhances the quality of life.

But there’s a cost to it, and when we say, “Let’s buy the local apples rather than the apples from New Zealand,” the cost is hidden, because apples are only a very small part of our economic life. If we tried to replicate that strategy over a wide range of products, the cost would be much more apparent.

SD: Environmentalists like Bill McKibben say the cost of some products doesn’t reflect their true environmental cost -

RR: And I think that’s true, by the way -

SD: But a lot of people would say the idea of “true environmental cost” is diametrically opposed to your idea about true cost.

RR: It’s a good observation. Rather than saying the true cost, it would have been better for me to say the full cost. Right now, if you buy local produce instead of produce that comes from across the country or across the ocean, the cost is pretty clear: It’s a little more expensive, usually. Sometimes the quality is higher, so you say, “Well, I think it’s a bargain after all.” Sometimes it’s not, so you say, “Well, it’s worth it, ’cause it’s local.”

I don’t know if people think through how those costs would add up if you tried to buy more locally than just food . . . I think it’s a question of magnitudes. There’s no doubt that when you make economic decisions based just on price, you’re not getting the full picture, which is the environmental critique. But I think it’s also true that when you purchase one item or category of items, such as food, locally, you don’t think about what the full cost would be if you did that more aggressively across a wider range of products.

SD: You’ve said self-sufficiency is the “road to poverty.” Does that relate to this discussion?

RR: Absolutely. That’s a quote from my first book, The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protectionism . . . I think the word self-sufficiency has an emotionally attractive ring to it: We don’t want to depend on others; we want to be self-sufficient; we certainly want our children at some point to grow up and become self-sufficient, rather than depending on us as parents. So self-sufficiency is generally seen as a goal, but in economic activity and in trade generally, no one really has self-sufficiency as a goal.

Discussion Questions:

1. Why does self-sufficiency lead to poverty?
2. What is the “true environmental cost” of buying certain products, namely cheap, imported food and consumer goods?
3. What is the opportunity cost of “buying local”, whether it be food or other consumer items?

At the end of this week, the U.S. Government’s Commerce Department will provide its first estimate of the country’s 3rd quarter (July-September 2008) gross domestic product or GDP. This upcoming GDP report is of particular interest to the world since it will provide an important measurement of how much the U.S. economy has slowed or even recessed over the last several months. Many economists predict that the upcoming GDP report will show either no significant economic growth or, very likely, negative growth.

Let me try and make the concept of GDP easy to understand and explain why it is considered the most important, single macroeconomic measurement.

GDP is simply a calculation that measures the market value (final price) of all the final goods and services produced within the borders of our country. Thus, U.S. GDP includes Toyotas produced in Alabama but excludes Cadillac’s made in Canada. GDP includes all U.S. exports but excludes all U.S. imports since imports, by definition, are produced in some other country and are a part of that country’s GDP.

If you think about it, ultimately our economic satisfaction is better measured by the goods and services that are produced and that we have access to more so than in any other single measurement, which is why GDP is the measurement that is synonymous with “economic growth”. In addition, rising GDP (more goods and services) is the ultimate economic goal of any economy which can best be accomplished through the means of the two other key macroeconomic measurements of employment and productivity.

Let’s describe how the GDP calculation is made. Each quarter, the Government compares the final value of the domestic goods produced and services rendered in the current quarter to the final value of the goods produced and services rendered in the previous quarter. The calculation then takes the percentage gain, current quarter versus previous quarter, and annualizes the percentage. The comparison is always restated for inflation so that the figures are comparable from one period to the next. For purists, we call this “real GDP” which is the only GDP reported by the media, even though the word “real” is almost always dropped to avoid confusion with the average citizen. For example, the second quarter 2008 U.S. GDP report highlighted a 2.8% GDP annualized growth rate. This means that the second quarter final value of goods and services produced was approximately .7% higher than the first quarter final value of goods and services produced. Thus, the quarter over quarter growth of approximately .7% was reported at an official 2.8% annual growth rate for the second quarter.

Now let me get to my favorite point on GDP, which even many economists lose sight of. GDP growth is precisely the same as income growth! For example, in the second quarter of 2008 we can say that incomes for Americans grew by 2.8% restated for inflation. You probably never thought about it this way but every time you purchase something, every dollar you spend is going to someone as income, whether it is the workers as wages, the landlord as rent, a bank that has made a loan as interest income, or to the owners of the business as profits. I tell my students that GDP = Income and we review how the Government calculates GDP both in terms of the final market value of the goods and services as well as how that same production value is reconciled to the incomes of others.

I find the preceding paragraph, GDP = Income, to be a break through moment for a lot of citizens in truly understanding the GDP measurement. It is easier for most citizens to think in terms of income percentage growth in lieu of GDP growth. Most citizens are surprised to find that incomes or GDP, restated for inflation, have increased by 17.4% from 2000 – 2007. This 8-year growth rate in GDP or incomes still equates to a below average historical average performance. More specifically, over the last 8 years our average annual GDP or income growth rate was only 2.2% versus our historical average growth rate of 3.2%. However, the final point of caution is that the GDP or income growth rate is a collective average, thus the growth in GDP or incomes does not indicate how those income gains are accruing to the various socioeconomic classes or professions.

Russell Roberts of George Mason University is a well-known advocate of free trade. This article is one of my favorite and certainly one of the clearest explanations of the mutual benefits resulting from free trade that I have read.

Foreign Policy: Why We Trade – by Russ Roberts

To hear most politicians talk, you’d think that exports are the key to a country’s prosperity and that imports are a threat to its way of life. Trade deficits—importing more than we export—are portrayed as the road to ruin… Politicians are always talking about the necessity of other countries’ opening their markets to American products. They never mention the virtues of opening U.S. markets to foreign products.

This perspective on imports and exports is called mercantilism. It goes back to the 14th century and has about as much intellectual rigor as alchemy, another landmark of the pre-Enlightenment era.

The logic of “exports, good—imports, bad” seems straightforward at first—after all, when a factory closes because of foreign competition, there seem to be fewer jobs than there otherwise would be. Don’t imports cause factories to close? Don’t exports build factories?

But is the logic really so clear? As a thought experiment, take what would seem to be the ideal situation for a mercantilist. Suppose we only export and import nothing. The ultimate trade surplus. So we work and use raw materials and effort and creativity to produce stuff for others without getting anything in return. There’s another name for that. It’s called slavery. How can a country get rich working for others?

Then there’s the mercantilist nightmare: We import from abroad, but foreigners buy nothing from us. What would the world be like if every morning you woke up and found a Japanese car in your driveway, Chinese clothing in your closet, and French wine in your cellar? All at no cost. Does that sound like heaven or hell? The only analogy I can think of is Santa Claus. How can a country get poor from free stuff? Or cheap stuff? How do imports hurt us?

We don’t export to create jobs. We export so we can have money to buy the stuff that’s hard for us to make—or at least hard for us to make as cheaply. We export because that’s the only way to get imports. If people would just give us stuff, then we wouldn’t have to export. But the world doesn’t work that way.

It’s the same in our daily lives. It’s great when people give us presents—a loaf of banana bread or a few tomatoes from the garden. But a new car would be better. Or even just a cheaper car. But the people who bring us cars and clothes and watches and shoes expect something in return. That’s OK. That’s the way the world works. But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking the goal of life is to turn away bargains from outside our house or outside our country because we’d rather make everything ourselves. Self-sufficiency is the road to poverty.

And imports don’t destroy jobs. They destroy jobs in certain industries. But because trade allows us to buy goods more cheaply than we otherwise could, resources are freed up to expand existing opportunities and to create new ones. That’s why we trade—to leverage the skills of others who can produce things more effectively than we can, freeing us to make things we otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford.

Discussion Questions:

1. “Self-sufficiency is the road to poverty” – Discuss…
2. Explain the logical economic fallacy of the mercantilist philosophy of “exports good, imports bad”
3. “…because trade allows us to buy goods more cheaply than we otherwise could, resources are freed up to expand existing opportunities and to create new ones”. What basic economic principle is Professor Roberts alluding to here?

The $1.4 Trillion Question – James Fallows – the Atlantic

What’s the deal with American consumers? How, exactly, does a nation’s average savings rate fall to 2%, then 1%, and then become negative, like in the US over the last couple of years? What does negative savings actually mean? It means that Americans consumer more than they actually produce.

On the micro level, the only way to consume beyond ones income is to borrow from someone else to pay for the additional consumption. In other words, savings must be negative for one to consume beyond his or her income. The US is a nation of borrowers, but from whom do we borrow? China, for one…

China is a nation of “savers”, where national savings averages 50% of income. What exactly does this mean? Well, just the opposite what negative savings means; rather than consuming more than it produces, the Chinese consume only about half of what it produces. Here’s how James Fallows, a Shanghai-based journalist, explains the China/US dilemma:

Any economist will say that Americans have been living better than they should—which is by definition the case when a nation’s total consumption is greater than its total production, as America’s now is. Economists will also point out that, despite the glitter of China’s big cities and the rise of its billionaire class, China’s people have been living far worse than they could. That’s what it means when a nation consumes only half of what it produces, as China does.

What happens to the rest of China’s output? Naturally, it’s shipped overseas for Americans and others in the West to consume. The irony is that the consumption of China’s products has been kept affordable and cheap thanks to the actions the Chinese government has taken to suppress the value of the RMB, thus keeping its products cheap and attractive to American consumers.

When the dollar is strong, the following (good) things happen: the price of food, fuel, imports, manufactured goods, and just about everything else (vacations in Europe!) goes down. The value of the stock market, real estate, and just about all other American assets goes up. Interest rates go down—for mortgage loans, credit-card debt, and commercial borrowing. Tax rates can be lower, since foreign lenders hold down the cost of financing the national debt. The only problem is that American-made goods become more expensive for foreigners, so the country’s exports are hurt.

When the dollar is weak, the following (bad) things happen: the price of food, fuel, imports, and so on (no more vacations in Europe) goes up. The value of the stock market, real estate, and just about all other American assets goes down. Interest rates are higher. Tax rates can be higher, to cover the increased cost of financing the national debt. The only benefit is that American-made goods become cheaper for foreigners, which helps create new jobs and can raise the value of export-oriented American firms (winemakers in California, producers of medical devices in New England).

Clearly, a strong dollar is good for America in many ways. The dollar’s strength in the last decade can be credited partially to the Chinese, who have been buying dollar denominated assets in record numbers over the last seven years.

By 1996, China amassed its first $100 billion in foreign assets, mainly held in U.S. dollars. (China considers these holdings a state secret, so all numbers come from analyses by outside experts.) By 2001, that sum doubled to about $200 billion… Since then, it has increased more than sixfold, by well over a trillion dollars, and China’s foreign reserves are now the largest in the world.

China’s purchase of American assets keeps demand for dollars on foreign exchange markets strong, thus the value of the dollar high relative to other currencies, allowing American firms and consumers the benefits of a strong dollars described above.

As we learn in AP Economics, a nation’s balance of payments consists of the current account, which measures the difference between a country’s expenditures on imports and its income from exports (China last year had a $232 billion current account surplus with the US, meaning the US bought more Chinese goods than China bought of American goods), and the capital account, which measures the difference between the inflows of foreign money for the purchase of real and financial assets at home and the outflows of currency for the purchase of foreign assets abroad. In the capital account, China maintains a deficit (meaning China holds more American financial and real assets than America does of China’s), to off-set its current account surplus.

The two accounts together, by definition, balance out… usually. Any deficit in the China’s capital account that does not cover the surplus in its current account can be held as foreign exchange reserves by the People’s Bank of China. The PBOC, however, prefers not to hold excess dollars in reserve, as the dollar’s value is continually eroded by inflation and depreciation; therefore it invests the hundreds of billions of excess dollars it receives from Americans’ purchase of Chinese goods back into the American economy, buying up American assets, with the aim of earning interest on these assets that exceed the inflation rates.

The “assets” the Chinese are using their large influx of dollars to buy are primarily US government bonds. The government issues these bonds to finance its budget deficits (when government spending is greater than tax revenue; this figure was projected at around $400 billion this year alone!), and the Chinese are happy to buy these bonds for a couple of reasons: They are secure investments, meaning that unless the US government collapses, the interest on US bonds is guaranteed income for China. That’s one reason; but the primary reason is that the purchase of these bonds puts US dollars that were originally spent by American consumers on Chinese imports right back into the hands of American consumers (via government spending or tax rebates), so they can continue buying more Chinese imports.

The Chinese demand for dollar denominated financial assets, including government bonds, corporate stocks and bonds, and real assets like real estate, factories, buildings and so on, has resulted in a long period of a strong dollar. If the Chinese ever decided to stem the flow of dollars into American assets, the dollar’s value would plummet to record lows, leading to high inflation and eventually a balancing of America’s enormous current account deficit with China and the rest of the world.

However, a falling dollar is the last thing China wants to see happen, for two reasons: One, it would make Chinese imports more expensive thus less attractive to American households, thus harming Chinese manufacturers and slowing growth in China. Two, US dollars are an asset to China. Its $1.4 billion of US debt would evaporate if the dollar took a major plunge. To China, this would represent a loss of national wealth; in effect all that “savings” that makes China so unique would disappear as the dollar dived relative to the RMB. For these reasons, it seems likely that China will continue to be a willing buyer of America’s debt, thus the financier of Americans’ insanely high consumptive lifestyle.

Discussion Questions:

1. Many people in America are terrified that the Chinese might dump their dollar holdings. What would happen to the value of the US dollar if China decided to change its foreign reserves to another currency?
2. Why is it very unlikely that China will do this? In other words, how does the status quo benefit China as well as the US?
3. How do American households benefit from China’s financing of the government’s budget deficits? In what way to they suffer from this arrangement?
4. Do you think America can continue to finance its budget deficits through the continued sale of debt to foreigners forever? Why or why not?

YouTube – Obama / McCain 3rd Debate, Part 10 – Free Trade

Below is a clip from the third and final presidential debate, in which the candidates discuss the benefits of free trade.

Both candidates support the principles of free trade, one more enthusiastically and with fewer conditions than the other. Only Obama speaks of “fair trade”, which he seems to think means trade that does not encourage the violation of human rights abroad.

Notice how towards the end of the discussion of free trade, McCain attempts to wrap up the conversation when he claims:

“I don’t think there is any doubt that Senator Obama wants to restrict trade and to raise taxes; and the last president of the United States who tried that was Herbert Hoover, and we went from a deep recession into a depression…”

Hoover, of course, was the US president at the time of the Great Depression, when the government’s response to a financial crisis on Wall Street worsened the economic meltdown, throwing the US into its deepest and longest slowdown in history.

Discussion questions:

1. How would a free trade agreement with Columbia help “create jobs in America”? What are the “billion dollars or more that (America) has already paid” through its trade with Columbia?
2. What is the source of Obama’s lack of enthusiasm for the Columbia Free Trade Agreement? Do you agree with his position on the importance of limiting free trade in order to stand for human rights? Why or why not? Is his view a protectionist one?
3. One of Obama’s highest priorities is to hold auto makers responsible for improving the fuel efficiency of American-made automobiles. How does he plan to create “five million new jobs all across America, including in the heartland”? Does Obama’s plan to invest in a clean energy economy sounds remotely protectionist? Why or why not?

Colbertnation | The Colbert Report Official Site | Comedy Central

Newsweek international edition editor Fareed Zakaria explains in clear terms the root causes of the United State’s economic hardships. Simply put, Americans have lived beyond their means for far too long.

When a household, a firm, or a national government spend more than it earns (in income or tax revenues), it must borrow to do so. The only problem with this type of deficit financed spending is that at some point “the only way people will keep lending you money is that you have to pay higher and higher interest rates…” This, according to Zakaria, is why the US economy has begun to slow down. Higher interest rates make borrowing and spending less and less attractive, while making savings more attractive.

Savings rates have started to rise in America as our debts have come due. Higher savings means less spending, less spending means weak Aggregate Demand, which means slower growth and rising unemployment. There you have it, the root cause of our economic meltdown. Americans have spent beyond their means for far too long; the question is, have we learned our lesson? Will our current hardships teach us to spend more responsibly in the future?

FT.com / World – Anti-dumping investigations soar

Free trade is good, right? This sentiment is one that economists typically agree with wholeheartedly. The mutual gains from free trade among nations that specialize in the goods for which they have the comparative advantage results in increased global output and consumption among trading nations. That, at least, is the basic premise of free trade.

But is there such a thing as unfair free trade? The World Trade Organization, whose mission is the removal of barriers to trade among all the world’s nations, thinks there is such a thing as unfair trade. Under certain circumstances, the WTO allows member nations to place protective tariffs on particular imports, and recently, more and more nations have taken action to protect their domestic markets from unfair trade practices of their trading partners:

The number of new anti-dumping investigations soared by nearly 40 per cent in the first six months of this year, the World Trade Organisation said on Monday, reflecting increased trade tensions as the credit crunch began to take its toll on the global economy.

Between January and June 16 WTO members started 85 new investigations compared with 61 in the first six months of 2007. China was the target of nearly half the probes, a jump of 75 per cent over the same period last year.

Under WTO rules, countries can put duties on unfairly priced imports that are sold in export markets more cheaply than at home. But until this year dumping actions had seemed to be on a downward trend, with 164 investigations in the whole of last year compared with over 200 in 2006.

Anti-dumping actions, once mainly taken by rich countries against poor ones, have become a tool increasingly used by developing nations while industrialised countries have increasingly become targets…

The EU was the third-ranking target in the first half of the year, after China and Thailand. Canada, the US, New Zealand and Norway also had investigations opened against their exports.

The WTO said the main products affected were base metals (21 investigations), textiles (20) and chemicals (10).

The number of new measures taken as a result of anti-dumping probes also rose in the first six months of 2008, with 54 measures against 51 measures in the same period in 2007. India applied duties in 16 cases, with the EU some way behind in second place.

China was again the main target followed by Taiwan, the EU, South Korea, Russia and the US.

Discussion Questions:

1. Why would a country want to keep cheap imports out of its domestic markets? Don’t cheap goods make consumers happy?
2. Does dumping refer to the sale of a country’s goods below the importing country’s costs of production or the costs of production in the country where the good is made? Why does this distinction matter?
3. When a nation protects its domestic market from dumping, is the principle of comparative advantage being undermined? Discuss.

Op-Ed Contributor – Buy American. I Am. – NYTimes.com

So Wall Street has recently experienced its worst shocks since the great depression. Every day the Dow Jones is like a roller coaster, DOWN 800 points, then  UP 500 points, then DOWN 200 followed by another rally of 600! In just three weeks the Dow has gone from 11,500 to below 900 points. Surely, the wise thing to do is get OUT of the stock market, right? WRONG! At least, so says the richest man in the world, Warren Buffet, someone who should know a thing or two about smart investing.

Why?

A simple rule dictates my buying: Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful. And most certainly, fear is now widespread, gripping even seasoned investors. To be sure, investors are right to be wary of highly leveraged entities or businesses in weak competitive positions. But fears regarding the long-term prosperity of the nation’s many sound companies make no sense. These businesses will indeed suffer earnings hiccups, as they always have. But most major companies will be setting new profit records 5, 10 and 20 years from now.

Let me be clear on one point: I can’t predict the short-term movements of the stock market. I haven’t the faintest idea as to whether stocks will be higher or lower a month — or a year — from now. What is likely, however, is that the market will move higher, perhaps substantially so, well before either sentiment or the economy turns up. So if you wait for the robins, spring will be over.

A little history here: During the Depression, the Dow hit its low, 41, on July 8, 1932. Economic conditions, though, kept deteriorating until Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in March 1933. By that time, the market had already advanced 30 percent. Or think back to the early days of World War II, when things were going badly for the United States in Europe and the Pacific. The market hit bottom in April 1942, well before Allied fortunes turned. Again, in the early 1980s, the time to buy stocks was when inflation raged and the economy was in the tank. In short, bad news is an investor’s best friend. It lets you buy a slice of America’s future at a marked-down price.

Over the long term, the stock market news will be good. In the 20th century, the United States endured two world wars and other traumatic and expensive military conflicts; the Depression; a dozen or so recessions and financial panics; oil shocks; a flu epidemic; and the resignation of a disgraced president. Yet the Dow rose from 66 to 11,497.

You might think it would have been impossible for an investor to lose money during a century marked by such an extraordinary gain. But some investors did. The hapless ones bought stocks only when they felt comfort in doing so and then proceeded to sell when the headlines made them queasy.

Today people who hold cash equivalents feel comfortable. They shouldn’t. They have opted for a terrible long-term asset, one that pays virtually nothing and is certain to depreciate in value. Indeed, the policies that government will follow in its efforts to alleviate the current crisis will probably prove inflationary and therefore accelerate declines in the real value of cash accounts.

Equities will almost certainly outperform cash over the next decade, probably by a substantial degree. Those investors who cling now to cash are betting they can efficiently time their move away from it later. In waiting for the comfort of good news, they are ignoring Wayne Gretzky’s advice: “I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been.”

I don’t like to opine on the stock market, and again I emphasize that I have no idea what the market will do in the short term. Nevertheless, I’ll follow the lead of a restaurant that opened in an empty bank building and then advertised: “Put your mouth where your money was.” Today my money and my mouth both say equities.

Discussion Questions:

1. Why does holding cash seem like the smart thing to do during periods of volatile stock prices like the last month or so? Why does Mr. Buffet think that holding cash is NOT so smart?
2. Mr. Buffet’s advice is counter-intuitive to some. Buying more of something that is falling in value (American stocks) may appear unwise… but what is Buffet’s rationale for why buying now may in fact be the smartest thing for an investor to do?
3. Does the behavior of investors on the stock market reflect the behavior of consumers in a typical product market? In other words, do the laws of supply and demand apply to the stock market? Discuss…

The Huffington Post – Economic Honor Roll

The liberal blog and news site, Huffington Post, has an interesting post sharing excerpts from the writings of some prominent economists over the last several years who foresaw the economic meltdown now underway in the world’s financial markets. It’s interesting to read these passages today and realize that the financial crisis that seemed to take Washington by such surprise in the last few weeks was something economists have seen coming for quite some time.

Nouriel Roubini, NYU professor of economics: from “The Rising Risk of a Systemic Financial Meltdown: The Twelve Steps to Financial Disaster” (subscription req’d), February 5, 2008

…it is possible that some large regional or even national bank that is very exposed to mortgages, residential and commercial, will go bankrupt. Thus some big banks may join the 200 plus subprime lenders that have gone bankrupt.[...]

Ninth, the “shadow banking system” (as defined by the PIMCO folks) or more precisely
the “shadow financial system” (as it is composed by non-bank financial institutions) will
soon get into serious trouble.[...]

Tenth, stock markets in the US and abroad will start pricing a severe US recession -
rather than a mild recession – and a sharp global economic slowdown.[...]

A near global economic recession will ensue as the financial and credit losses and the
credit crunch spread around the world. Panic, fire sales, cascading fall in asset prices will
exacerbate the financial and real economic distress as a number of large and systemically
important financial institutions go bankrupt. A 1987 style stock market crash could occur
leading to further panic and severe financial and economic distress.
In this meltdown scenario US and global financial markets will experience their most
severe crisis in the last quarter of a century.

Paul Krugman, New York Times columnist (and winner of the 2008 Nobel Price for Economics)

Krugman has been warning about the dangers of the housing bubble for years, and the terrible toll it could take on the economy when it pops. Here is a Krugman warning from August 29, 2005:

These days Mr. Greenspan expresses concern about the financial risks created by “the prevalence of interest-only loans and the introduction of more-exotic forms of adjustable-rate mortgages.” But last year he encouraged families to take on those very risks, touting the advantages of adjustable-rate mortgages and declaring that “American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage.

If Mr. Greenspan had said two years ago what he’s saying now, people might have borrowed less and bought more wisely. But he didn’t, and now it’s too late. There are signs that the housing market either has peaked already or soon will. And it will be up to Mr. Greenspan’s successor to manage the bubble’s aftermath.

How bad will that aftermath be? The U.S. economy is currently suffering from twin imbalances. On one side, domestic spending is swollen by the housing bubble, which has led both to a huge surge in construction and to high consumer spending, as people extract equity from their homes. On the other side, we have a huge trade deficit, which we cover by selling bonds to foreigners. As I like to say, these days Americans make a living by selling each other houses, paid for with money borrowed from China.

One way or another, the economy will eventually eliminate both imbalances.

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize-winning economist: Washington Post, “The Iraq War Will Cost Us $3 Trillion, and Much More,” March 9, 2008

We face an economic downturn that’s likely to be the worst in more than a quarter-century.

Until recently, many marveled at the way the United States could spend hundreds of billions of dollars on oil and blow through hundreds of billions more in Iraq with what seemed to be strikingly little short-run impact on the economy. But there’s no great mystery here. The economy’s weaknesses were concealed by the Federal Reserve, which pumped in liquidity, and by regulators that looked away as loans were handed out well beyond borrowers’ ability to repay them. Meanwhile, banks and credit-rating agencies pretended that financial alchemy could convert bad mortgages into AAA assets, and the Fed looked the other way as the U.S. household-savings rate plummeted to zero.

It’s a bleak picture. The total loss from this economic downturn — measured by the disparity between the economy’s actual output and its potential output — is likely to be the greatest since the Great Depression.

Daniel Altman, author, economic journalist and Huffpo blogger, from “Contracts So Complex They Imperil The System”, February 24, 2002

When companies that rack up huge hidden debts and traders who illicitly amass mountains of risk are exposed, Wall Street’s big players rush to cut their losses and collect on their debts. If that kind of rush were ever to result in a shortage of cash, it would paralyze the financial system. Stock markets would tumble and banks would close, putting the savings of households at risk.

As I read the daily news, listen to politicians, and chat with my colleagues in the teachers’ lounge, it really seems that almost everyone believes that mortgage defaults and delinquencies are the reason we are in this financial mess characterized by frozen credit markets and downward spiraling stock markets.  

To my way of looking at the economic world, saying that rising mortgage payment defaults and delinquencies are the cause of the global financial crisis is tantamount to saying that poor building design was the true cause of the thousands of deaths on 9/11/2001.

To use an often used cliche, rising mortgage payment defaults are simply “the straw that broke the camels back”. Moody’s Economy.com (Mark Zandi) estimates that all U.S. mortgage losses on existing mortgages will ultimately reach $650B. This $650B of mortgage default is miniscule in relation to the size of our Government’s vast financial resources and to the economy as a whole. It makes no economic sense that a $650B problem would generate an $8 Trillion decrease in financial asset wealth over the last year!

Clearly, there must be a real problem somewhere!

The real cause of the global financial crisis should not be blamed on the mortgage market or the housing crisis, but rather on inadequate regulatory law and the related governmental oversite of our financial institutions. There was no specific law prohibiting financial institutions to amass an alarmingly risky asset to debt ratio. All of the failures of financial institutions are resulting from the firms carrying too much debt (liabilities) relative to their assets (cash & other assets). Marketable securities will always go up and down in price so any firm, especially financial firms, must have a comfortable gap of higher asset values relative to their debt. The financial firms that have failed and are failing did not/do not have a comfortable ratio of asset to debt so when their mortgage related securities fell in value due to the mortgage payment uncertainty, debtors made a run on their collateral and demanded immediate payment from the financial institutions.

So what are the real causes of the financial crisis? Here are my top 6 reasons listed in order of significance. You will notice that the most significant (1-3) are really not specifically related to the housing market or mortgage default increases. Since the mortgage defaults and delinquencies were “the straw that broke the camels” back, I have included them at a lower priority (4-6) of the causes.

TOP 6 CAUSES OF THE U.S. FINANCIAL CRISIS:

1. Imprecise regulatory law allowed the financial institutions to carry too high a ratio of mortgage-backed securities to collateralized debt.
2. Banking regulators should have screamed louder earlier regarding the ratio of assets to debt! Although there are many documented attempts from specific people that did warn of this problem it was more a whisper than a scream.
3. New accounting regulations under Sarbanes Oxley (regulation passed after Enron) are too conservative causing assets like mortgage-related securities to be valued less than their economic value (true worth), which caused the bank debtor run on the bank.  
4. Private lenders (and their CEOs) got greedy either lowering or violating their own lending standards in hopes of making more interest income by loaning to people who were very risk bets.
5. Households borrowed more than they could afford. Citizens that borrowed need to share the blame with lenders, although I place lenders at a higher standard than borrowers.
6. New law had been passed several years ago, urging institutions like Fannie Mae to make more loans to lower income households that carried much more risk.

Mediterranean Center for Sustainable Development – Collaborative School Programs

One of the great joys of teaching at an international school is the opportunity for travel. Not only during breaks and summer vacations, but also with students through programs such as Zurich International School’s Classroom Without Walls.

My colleague and fellow Economics teacher (and blogger!) Joe Hauet decided last spring to organize an economics research and experiential learning trip to a sustainable living community on the banks of Egypt’s Nile River, near the city of Beni Suef, two hours south of Cairo. 40 ZIS Economics students, mostly year 2 IB students, will spend the coming week learning about economic development from experts in the field who are part of the Mediteranian Center for Sustainable Development Programs. The students, Joe and myself will spend three days at the Nile delta’s Kan Yama Kan village, followed by two days exploring the ancient Egyptian sites at Giza and around Cairo:

When teachers bring their students to Kan Yama Kan Village and engage them in our programs, they know we take a holistic approach to learning. Students learn about the environment through hands-on activities designed to provoke critical thinking and follow-up discussion in the classroom. They are exposed to sustainable development concepts and practices that are simple, easy to comprehend and replicable. Educating youth about the environment and developing their character leads to an informed citizenry with the capacity to reach the Millenium Development Goals

Our programming is proactive and flexible. We recognize that youth today face social and global challenges in a fast-paced world and we believe that as educators it is our responsibility to help them gain the intellectual and life skills they need to succeed. We do this by exposing students to practical learning experiences and modeling the behavior and values we teach; we use issues that arise while living in a community as learning opportunities about respect for others, good governance, human rights, and personal and collective responsibility.

Each visit to Kan Yama Kan is unique. Each program is tailored to the needs of the teachers, students or group. Whether the program focuses on biodiversity, animal behavior, renewable resources and searching for fossils or planning and building a habitat for tortoises, scripting a drama performance or revision for end of year exams, MCSDP works closely with faculty and school administrators to understand their objectives and meet their expectations.

The goal of the ZIS Classroom Without Walls trip to Egypt is to allow IB Economics students to experience the challenges faced by communities in developing countries, as well as to gain a deeper understanding of the development strategies rooted in sustainability that are going on around the Mediteranean region.

I owe a huge thanks to Joe Hauet, whose dedication and work in planning this trip over the last six months will truly pay off for the 40 students and four teachers leaving for Egypt bright and early tomorrow morning.

• How Government Stoked the Mania – WSJ.com

  Is the financial crisis purely a result of market failure? Professor Russel Roberts doesn’t think so. Read this great post to learn how the government may be the real culprit behind our financial mess.

  “…before we conclude that markets failed, we need a careful analysis of public policy’s role in creating this mess. Greedy investors obviously played a part, but investors have always been greedy, and some inevitably overreach and destroy themselves. Why did they take so many down with them this time?

  Part of the answer is a political class greedy to push home-ownership rates to historic highs — from 64% in 1994 to 69% in 2004. This was mostly the result of loans to low-income, higher-risk borrowers. Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, abetted by Congress, trumpeted that rise as it occurred. The consequence? On top of putting the entire financial system at risk, the hidden cost has been hundreds of billions of dollars funneled into the housing market instead of more productive assets.

  Beware of trying to do good with other people’s money. Unfortunately, that strategy remains at the heart of the political process, and of proposed solutions to this crisis.”

  tags: economics, financial crisis, market failure

Formidable Opponent – Business Syphilis | Thursday October 2 | ColbertNation.com

Business syphilis infects the market after a corporate orgy…

This post is in response to my colleague and fellow WW blogger Steve Latter’s recent post titled “Private market compesation: AIG CEO vs. Kobe Bryant”. It’s always enlightening to read Steve’s excellent posts, which really put things in perspective. With regards to CEO pay, it is a bit ironic that while Americans are all worked up about the high pay of its top executives, no one’s up in arms about the exorbitant salaries received by America’s professional athletes!

However, I wonder if Steve’s claim that limiting professional athletes’ pay would send the country’s top basketball players packing for leagues in other countries is true. A while back I blogged an article that asked the question of whether Lebron James would be offered a contract from a European club. James claimed that in order for him to even consider playing in Europe, he would require an offer of at least $50 million per year, more than double what he makes playing for Cleveland.

ESPN.com – Source: LeBron would consider European offer of $50M a year or more

…the Cleveland Cavaliers’ strongest competition for LeBron James’ long-term services could be the deep-pocketed new kid on the block — Europe.

A person close to James said Tuesday that the Cavaliers’ superstar would strongly consider playing overseas if he was offered a salary of “around $50 million a year.”

James’ current contract expires after the 2010-2011 season, but he can opt out after the 2009-2010 season, and while several NBA teams are working to create salary cap space for his impending free agency, none could offer a contract beginning at even $20 million a year.

So, would Kobe be on the next plane to Lithuania if the US government (or the NBA) limited his pay to $5 million? I doubt it. That brings us to the more urgent question: Would America’s top business executives begin shipping their families and all their belongings off to Jakarta or Dhaka, Delhi or Singapore, London or Paris, if the US government attempted to limit the compensation packages of its executives? Maybe, but there are many reasons to work and live in the United States beyond the salaries offered by firms for their top executives. And upon a little research, it turns out that European executives’ pay packages have in fact been under regulation by governments for quite some time, and as a result, the incentive for American executives to jump ship for European firms should US executive compensation come under regulation may not be as strong as Steve implies.

Executive pay in Europe | Pay attention | The Economist

How excessive is bosses’ pay in Europe? It has certainly risen sharply in the past ten years, as European firms have had to compete globally for talent. Foreign bosses now run seven of the firms in France’s CAC 40 index and five of Germany’s DAX 30. American-style bonuses and long-term incentive plans are now the norm.

European firms now benchmark pay against international peer groups in their own industries, rather than against domestic rivals, according to Piia Pilv, a pay expert at Mercer, a consultancy. But they still pay a fraction of the sums trousered each year by American executives. According to Hay Group, a management consultancy, the median European executive earns just 40% as much as his equivalent in America (see chart).

Most importantly, European companies appear to be more determined than American ones to link pay to performance. “Firms in Europe have tended to put more stringent conditions on long-term incentive awards than in America,” says Richard Bednarek, global director of executive remuneration for Hay Group. In America grants of shares are often not tied to performance, whereas European firms generally attach performance criteria to any grant of shares, typically depending on a comparison with a peer group. Such schemes often do not pay out at all, says Mr Bednarek. Dan Vasella, boss of Novartis, a Swiss pharmaceutical giant, and a favourite target of pay activists, earned SFr17m ($14m) in 2007, down 33% from 2006, because he missed his targets.

Clearly, the incentive to head to Europe as a result of increased scrutiny of executive compensation in the US is not as great as it would be if there did not already exist a threefold gap between US and European executive pay.

The liberal in me wonders if there is such a thing as “unfair” CEO compensation. The free market advocate in me points to other markets governments have attempted to control prices in, and the clear inefficiency that such regulation creates. Governments limiting executive pay, in theory, should have a similar effects to rent controls, or price ceilings in other markets. The quality and quantity of apartments available under rent controls declines, and price ceilings on other goods often result in shortages, meaning there’s not enough to go around among consumers… the quantity demanded exceeds the quantity supplied.

In the case of CEO pay in America, limiting compensation should, in theory, result in a shortage of highly qualified executives willing to head up American firms. But let’s be honest, even if the government placed highly stringent limits on the compensation of the country’s executives, the average executive in America would still likely be earning more than his counterpart in Europe. And since the average American CEO earns something on the order of 250 times what the average worker in his firm gets paid, increased regulation of CEO pay only help narrow this enormous gap slightly, but the incentive to make it to the top will still be strong among American workers.

Conclusions? It’s a tough issue. I want to have faith in the free market, in the price mechanism, in the efficacy of laissez faire economics. But the moral hazard of “golden parachutes” is a real concern. Should an American CEO be rewarded if he fails in his job? Steve makes the case that this “insurance” policy is necessary to attract the best and brightest to the firms willing to pay them most. Then again, something about the way the free market has created such a huge gap between executive pay and the pay of the average worker, and the threefold gap between America’s CEOs and Europes makes me think, “forget the free market, we need to get this insanity under control.”

“Anger”, more so than “fear”, is perhaps the most often expressed emotion by U.S. citizens, Congressmen, and media analysts when discussing the proposed $700B federal bailout of the U.S. financial system. “Anger” is the primary emotion because the $700B will be put at risk by the American taxpayer to bailout the very same financial institutions that have become increasingly reckless and greedy regarding their investing and borrowing practices.

In America, especially over the last two weeks, the discussion of a bailout to save our financial system and economy from ruin has become logically intertwined with a concurrent discussion of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) compensation packages. Many are outrgaged, especially in light of the horrendous financial results and excessive risk taking, when finding out about the lucrative CEO compensation packages consisting of base pay, bonuses, stock options, and termination (severence) pay.

Let’s analyze this topic by comparing the compensation packages of basketball superstar Kobe Bryant and recently fired AIG CEO Martin Sullivan.

In 2007, Kobe Bryant earned $20 million dollars playing basketball for the Los Angeles Lakers while Martin Sullivan earned $14 million dollars in 2007 running AIG, one of the largest insurance companies in the world.

In 2006, Bryant also earned $20 million for the year, whereas Sullivan earned $27 million as AIG’s financial performance was much stronger in 2006 versus 2007, causing Sullivan’s 2006 incentive-based compensation to be higher than 2007.

Now the big one: Sullivan’s 2008 termination or severence pay upon his firing as AIG CEO was $47 million dollars (two years pay)! Pretty nice “goodbye present” for Sullivan given the fact that AIG failed causing its owners (the stockholders) and potentially our country (taxpayers via bailout) to be crushed! Although Bryant has no termination or severence bonus built into his contract, his contract is guaranteed through 2011 which is somewhat similar to Sullivan’s “severence deal” in that Bryant is guaranteed payment should he be injured.

Thus, both compensation packages (Bryant and Sullivan) are somewhat similar in dollar amount, but beg the question: Is anyone worth that much money?

So the primary question of this blog is to discuss whether private market compensation, should be somewhat controlled or limited by governmental law, and if so, how.

Let’s start with Bryant.

If we passed a law taking the position that Bryant’s salary could not exceed $5 million per year, he would likely go play in Europe where European contracts are becoming more competitive and similar to U.S. contracts. Even if Bryant did stay with the Lakers, despite the new law, at $5 million per year, the $5 million savings (reduced salary) would go to the Lakers owner, Jerry Buss, so Buss would be making $5 million more at Bryant’s expense. In summary, we would have passed a compensation limiting law taking money from Bryant and giving it to the owner! Through the study of economics we ultimately understand that Bryant is, in essence, being paid by you and I whenever we see him at the arena (ticket prices) or watch him on TV (ad revenues). Ultimately, Bryant gets $20 million because we, not Buss, pay him $20 million! This is the private market at work, where voluntarily owners (Buss) pay their employees (Bryant) what they believe they are worth. Said one last way, Buss pays Bryant $20 Million per year because Buss thinks he can make more profit than if he doesn’t and loses Bryant to another team.

Let’s go to Sullivan now.

If we passed a law limiting executive salaries to some arbitrary number, say $5 million per year, the same thing would happen that happened to Bryant. The Harvard & Yale MBAs would not pursue American companies but would go to work at Canadian, European and Asian companies whose compensation would be “free market”. The U.S. would lose its best talent and our companies would become mediocre, fail at an increasing rate, and our standard of living would deteriorate as our leadership quality would deteriorate. It is the CEO that is at the helm of companies helping American businesses to produce an average 10.4% return for their owners (stockholders).

Now we get to the toughest question which is “should CEOs be paid a multi-million dollar severence payment after they have failed and been fired?” The obvious answer seems to be no! But sometimes, what appears to seem to be the obvious answer becomes less obvious in a free market. Any smart, Harvard or Yale MBA knows that they have a 50/50 chance of failing and being fired within their first 3 years as CEO. Statistics bear this out as CEOs are fired all the time as it is easier to fire the CEO than all of the employees. Large firms need the best talent and a talented CEO knows that sometimes their companies fail quickly often for reasons beyond their control no matter how talented they are. Thus, CEOs demand an “insurance payment” called severence pay to compensate them for their high risk and rate of failure. Once the CEO fails it becomes increasingly difficult to get that next CEO job as their reputation in the market place sours. Thus, a CEO looks at the entire compensation package (salary, incentives, and severence) when deciding where to work. If the risk is too high (dedicating their life to their business in lieu of their families) relative to the reward, they will take their talents elsewhere or to a new career.

What is my suggested government solution regarding trying to protect shareholders from excessive executive compensation? I suggest that our government only pass new law to increase ”disclosure requirements” on executive compensation to provide a better ”check and balance” on the Board of Directors who set the pay and severence amounts for the CEOs. The Government (SEC) should not get involved, in my opinion, with compensation limits or restrictions on severence pay, but they should pass a new law to provide greater visibility for the owners (stockholders) on their CEO’s (and other key management) compensation. For example, even though today all executive compensation is publicly accessible by the owners by examining publicly filed documents, the Government could pass new legislation making it mandatory for companies to send an annual letter directly to its owners (stockholders) outlining only their CEO’s and Board’s compensation.

But , please Government, be careful and don’t do anything stupid like setting maximums for CEO compensation.

Discussion Questions:

1. In your opinion, should the Government limit CEO salaries to some maximum? What about their severence payments, should they be limited? If so, how would you set the maximum amount?
2. Is it fair that Kobe Bryant makes more than a police offer? Why or why not?
3. What specific action should the Government take, if any, regarding executive compensation?

With three television interviews under her belt, there is much concern about Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s ability to understand, much less help resolve, America’s dire economic situation.

Jack Cafferty Loves Sarah Palin, Part II

Think Cafferty and other Palin critics are over-reacting? Judge her econ-cred for yourself. See if you can keep up with her stream of conciousness, covering every economic issue she can think of in under one minute.

Sarah Palin Talks Bailout Proposal

• Stiglitz: The Fall of Wall Street Is to Market Fundamentalism What the Fall of the Berlin Wall Was to Communism

  Even if we weren’t looking at the financial turmoil, but at the level of household, national and federal debt there is a major problem. We are drowning. If we look at inequality, which is the greatest since the Great Depression, there is a major problem. If we look at stagnating wages, there is a major problem.

  Most of the economic growth we’ve had in the past five years was based on the housing bubble, which has now burst. And the fruits of that growth have not been shared widely. In short, the fundamentals are not strong.

  tags: Economics, financial crisis, Stiglitz, Obama