Asia Sentinel - Malaysia cuts fuel subsidy

One of the recurring themes of this blog is the conflict between good politics and good economics. Most of the time in government, smart economic policy is sacrificed in order to achieve political favor with voters. Whether it’s price ceilings on petrol in China, Zimbabwe’s slashing of food prices, harmful import restrictions to benefit domestic producers, or the proposed suspension of gas taxes in a time when fuel conservation is really what’s needed, politicians often act in economically stupid ways to bolster or hang on to their popularity.

So when a government makes a bold move that is economically sound, it sometimes comes as a surprise, as in the case of the Malaysian government this week. The government in Kuala Lumpur has for years subsidized domestic fuel prices, which at under 2 Malaysian Ringit per liter have been the equivelant of roughly $2.40 US per gallon, far below the average price in the west. Drivers benefited from this subsidy, but were not forced to bear any of the burden of rising oil prices, nor had they any incentive to conserve or switch to more fuel efficient automobiles or alternative forms of transportation. The Malaysian government, on the other hand, has had to allocate more and more of its limited budget towards subsidizing petrol prices.

Well, as of yesterday, all price supports for petrol are cancelled, and the effect will be sweeping in the Malaysian economy:

The government announced Wednesday evening that petrol prices would rise by 78 sen (US24¢) at midnight — a 41 percent jump from RM1.92 per liter to RM2.70. That means those spending RM2,000 per month to fill the tanks of their BMWs will now be paying RM2,820. Regardless of income levels, it is likely most Malaysians will feel the pinch.

The subsidy would have cost the Malaysian government 56 billion ringit (around $17 billion) this year. With the money it will now save by ending the subsidy, the government will begin making public transport cheaper and more convenient for commuters who wish to avoid paying for the more expensive petrol to fuel their personal automobiles:

The government hopes to channel the savings into improving public transportation, as it promised many years and elections ago but with little to show. In Kuala Lumpur, despite having a light rail train service and monorail, public transportation is expensive and inconvenient. Worse, intercity travel is still being serviced by old and slow trains, and accident-prone buses.

Malaysia is not the only country taking measures to end government fuel-price supports:

Indonesia has hiked fuel prices by an average of 29 percent, saving about 34.5 trillion rupiah and kicking off a series of street demonstrations… Similarly, after slashing subsidies, Taiwan will distribute US$659 million to middle and low-income families. The latest to raise oil prices is India, whose government announced Wednesday that gasoline and diesel prices will increase by 10 percent.

One of the many reasons that I find the study of economics so fascinating is that what so often appears to be a negative situation to the average citizen is actually a positive one. In other words: “down is often up” and “black is often white”. One of my favorite examples of this “180 degree moment”, and why I love to teach AP Macroeconomics, relates to the study of unemployment.

Clinton thinks suspending the gas tax for the summer is good for Americans. She says that any revenue lost can be made up for by taxing the profits of oil companies.

Obama thinks it will cause more harm than good to the economy. He says the $9 billion of government revenue foregone could have done more good for the economy through job creation and road maintenance than the $25 each American driver will save with a suspension of the gas tax.

They’re both using their positions on the gas tax to garner more support among Democratic voters in Indiana and North Carolina, where next week’s key primaries will be held.

Greg Mankiw, Harvard economist, has this to say about Hillary’s plan:

I don’t know any prominent economist who favors this McCain-Clinton proposal. More common is the reaction of a friend of mine (a veteran of the Clinton administration) who calls the idea “ludicrous.”

Sometimes a candidate’s position on one particular issue, even a relatively minor one like a federal gas tax that most Americans probably didn’t even know they were paying when they filled up their tanks, draws clear lines around a candidate’s values.

Clinton’s ‘Trouble’ ad

Obama Takes On Clinton and McCain on Gas Tax Holiday

It should be noted that while Obama is probably right that a gas tax suspension will only save drivers a pittance, his economics is slightly flawed. Here’s Tim Haab of Environmental Economics blog responding to Obama’s claim that a gas tax holiday could actually increase demand for gas thus raise gas prices:

Wrong, wrong, wrong: A lower gas price causes quantity demanded to increase as consumers move down the demand curve. The only things that cause gas demand to change are changes in income, prices of substitutes and complements, tastes and preferences and expectations… I demand a retraction.

Who are these “some economists” that Obama is talking about? Did they get their degrees from an SEC school or something? Name names so that we can have an econoblogosphere beatdown! Out these blasphemers!

Note: I think Obama got the $25 to $30 number correct.

Mr. Haab is technically correct when it comes to basic economic theory. Repealing the gas tax should shift supply out, not demand, as taxes are a determinant of supply. Rather than demand changing, quantity demanded by drivers will increase, in response to the increased supply and lower prices.

What I do think could happen, however, is that expectations of future price increases might incentivize drivers to increase their demand for gas over the summer. This Mr. Haab seems to oversee. When August roles around and drivers know that come Labor day the gas tax will kick in again, they may chose to take a family road trip that they otherwise would have postponed, shifting overall demand for gas out, driving prices up.

In the case of a temporary suspension of an excise tax on any good, there is always the expectation that the price will increase again in the future. This could lead to hoarding or stockpiling of the good, increasing overall demand and driving the price up before the tax has even returned.

Shanghai American School Economics Student Blog » You Hate Taxes, I Hate Taxes… Let’s Hug- by Alice Su

I’m repeatedly amazed at the intelligence and maturity of the young economists here at Shanghai American School. After only nine months of econ instruction, these students already know more about sound economic policy than politicians of 40 years! Case in point: SAS senior Alice Su offers an stinging critique of John McCain’s proposed tax plan over at the SAS Economists Blog. Read below…

It’s easy to see how politics and sound economic policy may not mix very well; in fact, trying to put the two together usually ends up in contradiction and confusion that puts economically concerned voters in great distress. (Example: Remember that one econ class when Welker was talking about taxes, trying to decide if he was more liberal or conservative, and then got so agitated that Jeff said “You’re having a midlife crisis” and Welker threw a smartboard marker at him yelling “I’M 29!!”? Case in point. :P)

In this case, McCain’s speech about his economic policies on Tuesday contains so many contradictions, both with classroom economic theory and various parts of his own policy platform, that I find myself questioning whether he is taking a solid stance on the economy at all, or is simply trying to say whatever will appeal to his audience the most.

First, McCain’s economic plan, dripping with supply-side sentiment, is centered around a series of tax cuts. In addition to making Bush’s tax cuts permanent, he also calls for cutting corporate taxes, phasing out the alternative minimum tax, doubling the value of exemptions for each dependent to $7,000 from $3,500, and giving people the option of using a simpler, shorter tax form. As a finishing tax-cut touch,

One of Mr. McCain’s tax proposals would take effect even before the Republican Convention: he called on Congress to suspend the 18.4 cent a gallon federal gas tax from Memorial Day until Labor Day. Mr. McCain said that doing so would provide “an immediate economic stimulus,” but some environmentalists said that the change might encourage more people to use their cars, while Mr. McCain has made combating global warming central to his campaign.

Hmm. Here’s where the first hints of contradiction kick in. Besides the conflict between wanting to end global warming and yet encouraging more cars on the road, we’ve all studied the Laffer Curve, and I think I can speak for all the SAS Economists when I say that the U.S. Economy is not at a place where further tax cuts will lead to an increase in tax revenue or benefit the economy. Furthermore, what about the enormous budget deficit that Mr. Bush has so graciously left us with? As the author of this article discreetly points out, McCain seems to have forgotten that he previously promised to balance the budget by the end of the first term; rather than offer the economic stimulus that McCain is claiming it will, the tax cuts would probably just plunge the nation deeper into debt.

What answers do McCain’s economic policy have to offer these questions? Well, he also proposes a one-year freeze on most “increases in discretionary spending” while he reviews every federal program, department, and agency… with the exception of spending on the military. Supposedly, the money saved from eliminating earmarks as well as getting rid of unnecessary “discretionary spending” will add up to $100 billion annually, and that is how McCain says he will pay for the lowered business taxes. However, he neglected to address the issue of all the money being spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and whether any of that might be categorized as unnecessary “discretionary spending”, or whether we should be spending anything over there in the first place.

An analysis by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a liberal think tank, estimated that the overall cost of Mr. McCain’s tax cuts would be three times as much as the $100 billion he estimates that he can save. And they questioned whether his programs would really save $100 billion a year.

While I’m not saying anything in support of Obama or Clinton’s economic policies, McCain’s plan seems so shaky that I would think twice before buying into how he’s going to save our country. Personally- especially since this tax-cut-focused speech was given on the day of the deadline for filing taxes- it looks to me like another plan designed for the purpose of politics, and not with sound economic policy in mind.

Bush pushes Congress to vote on Colombia trade pact. - Apr. 14, 2008

Click on the graphs for full-size versions

The benefits of trade, while visibly demonstrated by two basic economic models, the production possiblities curve and a simple supply/demand diagram, are not as straightforward when politics is involved. Case in point: the Bush administration has been trying to push through a free trade deal with Columbia, one of our key allies in a region ripe with anti-American sentiment. The White House views the trade deal as a win-win for the American economy:

The administration insisted the deal would be good for the United States economically because it would eliminate high barriers that U.S. exports to Colombia now face, while most Colombian products are already entering the United States duty-free under existing trade preference laws.

On the surface it appears the US has nothing to lose from extending trade relations with Columbia, since few if any American jobs will be lost by such a deal; so why are some Democrats resisting the trade deal?

In explaining their opposition, Democrats have cited the continued violence against organized labor in Colombia and differences with the administration over how to extend a program that helps U.S. workers displaced by foreign competition.

As is so often the case, what’s best for the economy does not seem to be what’s in the best interests of Americans. Our values extend, in some cases, beyond our pocketbooks. The White House argues that the US/Columbia free trade agreement only promises to increase demand for American products while doing little to affect domestic employment. The fact that most Columbian imports are already tariff-free probably confirms this. But the Democrats oppose this deal on the grounds that it would appear that America endorses the anti-labor activities of the Columbian governments.

Labor is a touchy political issue in America, where union membership among workers has fallen from around 40% in the 1950’s to around 13% today. As Columbia and other developing economies become integrated into the global economy, there is increasing pressure for governments to liberalize their domestic labor markets, weaken unions, lower wages in order to attract more investment from abroad, lower the costs of production, thus increase the quantity of their exports demanded abroad. Labor market flexibility and liberalization is certainly an important step in attracting investment and demand to developing countries, but if it comes at the expense of the well-being of the citizens of a poor country, then perhaps standing against such anti-labor actions is a just cause.

The free trade deal with Columbia poses more of a moral dilemma than an economic one. From America’s stand-point, it appears to be a win-win situation. But from the perspective of international labor standards, approving a trade deal with Columbia threatens to undermine another set of American values: those of human rights.

Discussion questions:

1. Why do you think the White House is so adamant about pushing through the trade deal with Columbia?
2. Are the Democrats correct to oppose a deal that could create jobs in America while at the same time make more goods available to Columbian consumers at lower prices?
3. Should America be trying to dictate the labor standards of its trading partners? Why or why not?

Wednesday’s class this week was one of my favorite of the year. Why? We got to talk taxes. Oh my goodness, you say, what’s wrong with Welker? How could he actually enjoy talking about taxes? As I said at the beginning of class, there are only two certainties in life: death and taxes.

For most people, taxes are a dismal subject, to say the least. But for teachers of economics, especially in this presidential election year, taxes make for an exciting economic, political and philosophical debate.

The premise of our discussion in class was the idea put forth by Arthur Laffer nearly 30 years ago towards the beginning of the Regan administration: that if the government would cut taxes on businesses and households, the incentive to invest and work would increase so much that gains in total output and income would be such that the government’s tax revenue might actually increase, despite the tax cut! Cutting taxes on the wealthy would have the greatest positive effect, however, since it’s the wealthy who do most of the investing and much of the spending in the economy.

This basic philosophy underpinned the tax cuts the wealthy enjoyed during Regan’s presidency, and again during George W. Bush’s term in 2001 and 2003. The debate about whether taxes cuts made by the current president is one at the heart of the Democratic/Republican divide today.

Watch the videos below, then answer the questions that follow:

First, the Democratic view:

Then the Republican view:

Discussion questions:

1. Why do Obama and Clinton promise that if they’re elected we’ll “go back to the tax rates we had before President Bush”?
2. What is McCain’s criticism of Obama’s view on taxes?
3. What do you think about the “supply-side” argument that lower taxes will stimulate spending, growth, employment, and possibly even the amount of tax revenue collected by the government? Do you buy it?
4. Are you a “supply-sider” or more of a Keynesian when it comes to the role of government in the economy? What’s the difference?

Beyond the Noise on Free Trade - New York Times

Ever wondered which presidential candidate had the most “economistic” views on economic issues? In other words, which candidate supports economic policies most in line with the mainstream economic theories of our day: Obama, Clinton or McCain?

First question is what, exactly, are the mainstream economic views at issue? In Harvard Professor Gregory Mankiw’s article above, he talks about the issue of free trade:

Economists are, overwhelmingly, free traders. A 2006 poll of Ph.D. members of the American Economic Association found that 87.5 percent agreed that “the U.S. should eliminate remaining tariffs and other barriers to trade.”

The benefits from an open world trading system are standard fare in introductory economics courses. In my freshman course at Harvard, we start studying the topic in the second week, and we return to issues of globalization throughout the year. The basic lessons can be traced back to Adam Smith of the 18th century and David Ricardo of the 19th century: Trade between two countries creates winners and losers, but it leaves both nations with greater overall prosperity.

Indeed, all principles of economics courses (including our AP and IB courses here at SAS) teach in the first units the concepts of comparative advantage and trade based on specialization by nations in the production of the goods for which they have a lower opportunity cost than others. This basic tenet, illustrated so clearly with a simple productions possiblity curve, has proven to be the source of endless political turmoil in America, a country whose market economy is built on the principles of free trade, but whose citizens seem to increasingly oppose it today:

In December, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll asked Americans, “Do you think the fact that the American economy has become increasingly global is good because it has opened up new markets for American products and resulted in more jobs, or bad because it has subjected American companies and employees to unfair competition and cheap labor?”

When this question was asked a decade ago, the public was almost evenly split. In the recent poll, however, only 28 percent endorsed globalization, while 58 percent opposed it.

The protectionist tide seems to be rising in America in the face of rising unemployment, falling output, inflation and all-around insecurity among households and firms. So the question arises, where do the leading candidates fall on issues of free trade? Is it a threat to Americans’ well-being or the source of our vast wealth and power? Mankiw examines the candidates’ stances on a few major trade issues in the last few years. 

Here’s what he finds: Overwhelmingly, John McCain has shown support for policies aimed at expanding free trade, while Clinton and Obama have taken stances oposing open markets. From opposing tariffs on Chinese imports to advocating a reduction of subsidies to American farmers to supporting the Central American Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and the US/South Korea FTA, McCain has consistently fallen on the side of the mainstream economists on the issue of globalization, while his Democratic counterparts have taken stances opposing trade liberalization and the opening of new markets to competition between American and foreign producers.

What conclusions can be drawn from Mankiw’s observation? Are Democrats economically illitereate? Do Obama and Clinton need to sit through Econ 101 to learn that trade and specialization benefit society through expansion of output and lower prices? Probably not. Mankiw suggests that the rhetoric coming from the “Hillbama” campaigns is probably just populism aimed at gaining support of voters who fear the threat they perceive trade to pose to their livelihoods.

Maybe the candidates’ records as legislators are not good indicators of what their policies might be as president. Maybe campaign rhetoric… is nothing more than that. But counting on it requires, one might say, the audacity of hope.

Personally, I hope Mankiw is right, and that the Democrats prove to be a bit more ”economistic” in their policies should one of them end up in office. What do you think? Should American voters believe everything candidates say in their campaigns? If Hillary and Barack appear to be anti-trade and protectionist now does that mean America will be put on a path of isolation should one of them win the White House? Should we, as economists, be afraid, or hopeful, in this time of “change” and “hope” in America?

Powered by ScribeFire.

The Rutherford Institute: A Crisis in Democracy: Are We Going Bankrupt?- Commentary

Environmental Economics blogger John Whitehead wonders whether America is going bankrupt, and if so, what can be done to fix the problem.

According to our text, (McConnell and Brue’s “Economics, 17th ed.”), “The large U.S. public debt does not threaten to bankrupt the federal government, leaving it unable to meet its financial obligations. There are two main reasons why, refinancing and taxation.”

McConnell and Brue argue that when past debt comes due, the US government will always be able to pay its creditors (i.e. the US public, financial institutions, branches of the federal government, as well as foreign banks and citizens) by selling more debt certificates (securities) to others who have faith that the US will continue to meet its debt obligations in the future. This is the equivalent of paying off one credit card with another, incurring even more debt in order to pay off past debt.

However, in the case that the government ever finds it hard to issue new securities, either due to a loss of faith among investors in its ability to repay its debt, or fear of economic instability in US growth, it can always resort to the more drastic measure of actually increasing taxes and reducing spending on public goods, using taxpayers’ money to meet its debt obligations. For these reasons, conclude the textbook authors, the U.S. government is not at risk of bankruptcy.

Or, is it?

According to Whitehead:

The fact that our nation is nearing bankruptcy has become what David Walker, comptroller general of the United States, calls “the dirty little secret everyone in Washington knows.” Most politicians, says Walker, are aware of the impending financial crisis but reluctant to do anything about it. After all, it is not politically expedient to increase taxes or trim spending, but this is exactly what needs to be done…

Walker, who recently resigned after serving as the government’s chief internal watchdog for a decade, concludes that the nation’s “current standard of living is unsustainable unless some drastic action is taken.” But, as usual, when we leave the problem-solving to the politicians, what we end up with is bigger government, more bureaucracy and a larger federal deficit, which is projected to total $410 billion for 2008. (The national debt, which is the total amount of money owed by the government, is currently estimated to be over $9.2 trillion.)

We are living in a house of cards that’s on the verge of crashing around us, and yet most Americans remain oblivious and continue to spend beyond their means. But, as Reich notes, “That era is now coming to an end. Consumers have run out of ways to keep the spending binge going.”

Whitehead believes Americans themselves need to reign in their spending, bringing their expenditures more in line with their incomes. If this is the path to individual financial security, then likewise it must hold true for the nation as a whole. What scares Whitehead more than the growing US public debt, however, is who holds that debt. Today, almost 30% of the $9.3 trillion owed by the US government is owed to foreigners.

According to economist James Galbraith, who Whitehead quotes, this puts to the test the very foundations of democracy, which in the past have relied on the relationship between America’s creditors (the holders of the debt) and the government itself. In 1945, almost all of America’s debt was held by Americans themselves, and the government acted in the interests of the American people. Today, the scales have tipped, and less than 10% of America’s debt is held by American citizens.

Galbraith concludes: “…the disappearance of the citizen-creditor forces a question. Can democracy survive when its financial roots have been cut? The scale of public debt is not the issue, but its ownership is. Can a country—whether the United States or any other—be truly democratic if it is in hock to banks and foreigners? …To put it bluntly, are we still a democracy? And, if not, what would it take to bring democracy back?”

We know what must be done.

First, we need to elect fiscally responsible representatives with the backbone to resist political pressure to spend what is not there. We also need to stop putting ourselves in hock to foreign banks and nations. And we need to put a stop to the financial hemorrhaging related to the Bush Administration’s war on terror. For example, over the past six years, the U.S. has disbursed to the corrupt government of Pakistan about $80 million monthly, or roughly $1 billion a year. Yet according to the Washington Post, few receipts are provided to account for how the money is used or where it ends up. That’s just the tip of the iceberg when one considers that we spend at least $1 billion a week in Iraq on military operations alone. Just imagine how those dollars could be put to use in our own ailing economy.

Certainly a fiscally responsible government would result in security and freedom such as that enjoyed by fiscally responsible individuals, free of debt. But just like the fiscally responsible individual, who so responsibly pays off every credit card every month, getting into the habit of balancing a budget, especially when the budget starts out so woefully unbalanced, poses serious challenges. Here’s an example:

Imagine you’re an individual earning $100,000 a year. Great salary, right? Hold on, you also owe $75,000 in credit card debt. What is the first thing you’d do if you earned an extra $10,000 next year? Go buy a new car? How about take a vacation to Europe? No? Well, what then? Logically, you’d start paying off the $75,000 debt, with the goal of becoming debt free sometime down the road.

This is America today. We’re a country with a national income of $13.5 trillion, and a national debt of $9.3 trillion. Fortunately, 70% of that debt is held by Americans themselves, so we essentially owe ourselves $6.5 trillion. When this debt is repayed, it does not represent a loss of wealth from America, rather a transfer of wealth from Americans to Americans, neither diminishing nor enhancing our overall spending power.

However, every year the share of our debt held by foreigners grows. Today it is around $2.8 trillion, the repayment of which represents a transfer of wealth from Americans to foreigners, making us poorer and them richer.

Tightening our fiscal belts may be tough now, but necessary to restore democracy and financial stability to our nation. This article by Whitehead makes some interesting arguments for steps the U.S. should take now to assure security and prosperity for future generations.

Discussion questions:

1. What do you think Whitehead and other economists who share his views think about the recent fiscal stimulus package passed by Washington?
2. Why don’t politicians seem to take serious measures to balance the US budget and begin paying off its debts?
3. Should we worry about the US debt? Why or why not? Who’s to say we can’t just keep refinancing the debt indefinitely?
4. Are you or is anyone you know in debt? Is personal debt something to be concerned about? Why or why not?

Powered by ScribeFire.