Related posts:

1. Cut taxes on the rich! How else are they ever gonna catch up with the super rich?
2. The “teenager tax” – why expansionary fiscal policy just ain’t fair!
3. Understanding the difference between progressive and regressive taxes

This article was originally published on June 9, 2008

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.

Related posts:

1. When markets work…
2. Beijing caves in to the indisputable power of the MARKET!
3. “Living” evidence of a determinant of demand at work in the deserts of Northern India

Now is that time of year when thousands of high school and college students across the world will be taking their very first economics course. Perhaps it will be a basic, high school introductory economics’ course, or perhaps an even more challenging AP or IB economics’ course. Or perhaps you are a freshman or sophomore in college taking an introductory macroeconomics or microeconomics course.

Whatever your situation, you will soon read that all introductory economic text book authors make the point, usually in their respective text’s first chapter, that a primary benefit of studying economics is that it aims to transform one into a more effective and influential citizen by enabling one to better understand and conclude on the economic positions and promises of those running for public office. The underlying logic is that a citizen or voter that is well-versed in basic economic principles will be a smarter citizen and more likely to vote for the political candidate or referendum that will deliver the greatest economic gain for the citizens of the locality, state, and/or nation. In fact, this “economics for citizenship” reason is why a growing number of states now require completion of a basic economics course as a requirement for high school graduation.

In my classroom, I informally call the study of economics “the 180 degree science” because as the student studies this social science for the very first time they often develop conclusions that are precisely the opposite (hence, the “180 degrees”) of what they had originally believed before taking their first economics course.

For example, here are two “180 degree moments”, which are applicable to the United States’ economy, that you may well learn in your first year economics’ course:

1. Pre-Econ Course or Uninformed View: “We don’t make anything anymore in America. America’s manufacturing prowess is in a state of constant decline. It seems like almost everything bought and used in the U.S. is made in China”

Post-Econ Course and 180 Degree View: Right before the recession hit in 2007, the U.S. was manufacturing approximately 2.5 times more in dollar value than China and is still today the largest manufacturer in the world. The dollar value of manufactured goods in the United States, restated for price level changes so the comparison is accurate, is up over 50% for the last 13 years ending in June of 2007, just prior to the recession! Yes, it is true that the U.S. has lost several million jobs in manufacturing over that same time period, but that is primarily due to rising manufacturing productivity (think machines & technology replacing humans), where the U.S. can now produce more valuable manufactured products than ever before freeing up those displaced manufacturing workers who now have found or must find employment in other more labor-intensive service-related businesses.

Moreover, the US has maintained its percentage share of rising global manufacturing product over that same aforementioned time period, whereas other countries, such as Japan and Germany, have actually decreased their percentage share of global manufactured product. More specifically, in 2006 U.S. manufacturing revenue, profits, exports, and productivity per employee reached their all time peak! Of course, with the current recession and the regression of the U.S. automobile industry, manufacturing levels are now below the levels of 2006. According to government statistics, manufacturing still accounts for slightly over a third of our economic activity and the U.S. will continue to grow in production value, although manufacturing will continue to decline as a percentage of overall economic activity as the United States is growing faster in services than in manufacturing.

2. Pre-Econ Course or Uninformed View: “It is patriotic for U.S. citizens to “buy American” so that we can help our own economy. When we buy foreign products (i.e., exports), in lieu of American products, we hurt our U.S. economy as we lose American jobs and incomes. I hope the recently passed stimulus bill monies will be spent entirely on U.S. products and services.”

Post-Econ Course and 180 Degree View: The U.S. will benefit the most economically if Americans buy what they consider to be the very best product, in terms of price and quality, regardless of whether it is a foreign-produced product or an American-produced product. One of the greatest “ah-ha” moments in all of economics is when an economics’ student or citizen learns for the first time that every time a U.S. buyer purchases a foreign product (i.e., an “import”) that those same U.S. dollars spent on the foreign product circle back to a U.S.- based company, not a foreign company. Yes, I am telling you that when you (or Wal-Mart, for example) buy Chinese shirts, your same U.S. dollars spent quickly end up in the hands of, say, an Apple, Microsoft, IBM, or General Electric to maintain or increase U.S. employment, profits, and stock prices!

Let me try to explain this concept in more detail so that I may actually be able to convince you of this amazing “180 degree” revelation. I always say the more accurate slogan should be “Buying American is Un-American”, since it creates a weaker America!

Let’s say that the United States (we’ll say Wal-Mart) decides to buy some shirts costing $400 from a Chinese shirt manufacturer, in lieu of buying similar shirts from, say, a shirt manufacturer in Elon, North Carolina (USA). The first key point is that when Wal-Mart buys the shirts from China for $400 it can only pay China with US dollars. Why? Because Wal-Mart has only US dollars! It has no Chinese currency (Yuan). It literally drains its bank account of US dollars that are transferred/paid to China! The second key point is that when China receives that same $400 US dollars for the shirts, China cannot, unfortunately, spend any of the $400 in its own economy since only the Yuan is accepted as a medium of exchange in China! China is now forced to either throw the U.S. currency away (not advised!), or immediately spend the money back to the USA (advised!).

In summary, China has initially traded a product (shirts!) for paper (US dollars!), and those US dollars cannot be spent in China. For China to receive any value at all for the shirts it sent to America, China must now spend the $400 back into the US economy for, say, a few i-Pods from Apple (USA). Cutting through to simplicity, in essence, it’s almost as if Wal-Mart (USA) just paid Apple (USA) $400 directly! Yes, the economic “punch line” is that all spending by the domestic nation on foreign products (imports), in turn, are spent immediately back to the domestic nation increasing or maintaining that domestic nation’s employment, income, and standard of living.

And, yes, let’s not forget about that Elon, North Carolina shirt maker that did not get the original $400 from Wal-Mart in our above example! Any good economy promotes competition and I will be excited to see if that North Carolina shirt manufacturer can “raise their game” (increase productivity and/or quality), and hopefully get the next shirt contract from Wal-Mart! If not, well, that North Carolina firm may just have to close down. But remember the key point is that the $400 spent for the Chinese shirts went to Apple, in lieu of the Elon, North Carolina shirt manufacturer. If Wal-Mart would have “bought American” by buying from the Elon shirt manufacturer, even though the Chinese shirts were preferable, Wal-Mart would have prevented the more effective U.S. business (Apple, in this example) from getting your U.S. dollars by giving them to the less efficient Elon manufacturer. In short, you would have contributed to American inefficiency and mediocrity, hurting our country! And that is un-American!

Now, you may be thinking the following if you have a little economics’ background: “But the US has a growing trade deficit with China, so China may not immediately buy those i-Pods from Apple for $400. And, you are correct, but that is also not a problem for either the United States or China. What China is really doing right now is deciding to temporarily save or invest a minority percentage of their US dollars received from U.S. import purchases. Said another way, China is not buying as many US i-Pods as the US is buying Chinese shirts and, of course, we call that situation the US trade deficit which immediately seems to speak “problem”. But it is really not as big a problem as most people think! China is still spending their “saved” US dollars back into the US economy, but in different ways. China is saving and investing some of those US dollars directly into the United States economy by building plants in America, buying US stock to fund American companies’ expansions, and temporarily saving some of their dollars, for future US purchases, by buying US bonds to help the US government pay for other US government initiatives necessitating borrowing. Eventually, China will sell these US bonds and be forced to use those U.S. dollars to buy those i-Pods or build more plants in America to employ more Americans!

I decided to highlight this particular “180 degree moment” because of the fact that the recently passed $800 Billion U.S. stimulus bill has some “buy American” provisions within it. Based on my intuition, I believe that over 95% of adult Americans believe that these “buy American” clauses somehow help our economy more so than if the stimulus bill was silent on “buy American”, thus allowing stimulus money to be spent on foreign-produced products as well. Yes, it is an economic principle that if U.S. citizens “buy American” driven solely by patriotism (and not because they think the product is superior) the American economy actually becomes weaker as the U.S. dollars spent out of patriotism on that American company are, therefore, unintentionally withheld from another more efficient and deserving American company.

In summary, when citizens of any country in the world buy the product that is best for them based on a combination of quality and price, they will be taking the most patriotic action possible to help their own country they love so much! If a domestic citizen sees the foreign product as a better alternative to the domestic product, buy it! Your money spent will immediately find its way back through the “trade loop” to another business within your country!

Of course, this is why all economists from around the world know that international trade, and not protectionism, helps a country’s standard of living and promotes efficiency and rising standard of livings!

Well enough for now. I could go on and on with more 180 degree moments relating to areas such as standard of living, unemployment, the minimum wage, gasoline taxes, and many others. But we’ll discuss some of those in class and I will cover others through this blog site. For now, I just really hope you look forward to and work hard in your economic course so that, you too, will become a more informed and influential citizen as you begin to see your nation’s economy, and our global economy, in a whole new light!

Discussion Questions:

1. Do you believe that politicians will promise and enact policy that seems on the surface to be beneficial to a nation, but are actually harmful to that nation?

2. After reading this blog do you begin to see how the huge declines in manufacturing employment are more driven by leaps in productivity (machines and know-how)? How else could we be producing more manufacturing value each year if employment is decreasing?

3. What would happen to a nation’s “standard of living” if the government passed a law requiring its citizens to only buy their own domestic products? Why?

4. Do you personally believe you will make your own country’s standard of living grow the fastest if you buy the best product available, whether an import (foreign) or a domestic product?

Related posts:

1. Economics for Citizenship / The 180 Degree Science!
2. Marco Garofolo on the imperfect science of Economics
3. International Trade Made Simple

Barack Obama and Joe Biden: The Change We Need | Taxes

The following was published in the Chicago Tribune’s “Voice of the People” page on October 29, 2008 in the midst of the US presidential race:

Redistributing wealth
On my way to lunch recently, I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read “Vote Obama; I need the money.” I laughed. In a restaurant my server had on an “Obama 08″ tie. Again I laughed. Just imagine the coincidence. When the bill came, I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Barack-Obama-redistribution-of-wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need—the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight. I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful. At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment, I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more. I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

—A. Hart, Forest Park

The comment reflects a general contempt for the concept of taxation, specifically progressive taxes, or those that tax high income earners at a higher rate than those who earn low incomes. The idea behind a progressive tax, of course, is that higher income earners have income left over after they have provided themselves with the necessities of life, therefore should bear a larger burden of the nation’s tax revenue, which thereby enables the government to “re-distribute” wealth from the nation’s higher income earners across all levels of society through the provision of public goods.

The federal income tax in the United States is progressive in that the higher one’s income, the higher the percentage he or she pays to the US government. As seen in the table below, America’s poor will pay as little as 0-10% in income tax, while the nation’s richest households can pay up to 35%.

Opponents of progressive income taxes, which are also known as direct taxes because they are taken directly from a person’s income, argue that such a tax system creates a disincentive to work among American households. They argue that progressive income taxes penalize hard work and innovation, since the higher a worker’s productivity, the more of his income he must relinquish to the government.

One commonly misunderstood fact about the US income tax, however, is that it is a marginal tax system, meaning that when a person goes from, say the 25% to the 28% bracket, he does not pay 28% on ALL of his income, only on the marginal income above  $82,250 (according to the 2009 column above).  The implication is, therefore, that the average tax paid by an American will at any level of income be lower than the marginal tax. Below is a graphical representation of this concept. [source: http://aufrecht.org/pictures/images/858554/tax400.png]

It is the re-distributive intentions and effect of a progressive income tax system such as America’s (and every other country, click here to see tax rates from around the world) that has led to such intense opposition to the US tax system. Many in America’s government have proposed a “fair tax” that does away with America’s current direct tax system in favor of a nation-wide indirect, or sales tax on most goods and services. Watch the video below:

Click here to view the embedded video.

The fair tax is a indirect tax, meaning it is levied not directly on peoples’ income but indirectly on the purchase of goods and services in the economy, and is described as follows:

The sales tax rate, as defined in the legislation, is 23 percent of the total payment including the tax ($23 of every $100 spent in total—calculated similar to income taxes). This would be equivalent to a 30 percent traditional U.S. sales tax ($23 on top of every $77 spent before taxes).^[4] The effective tax rate for any household would be variable due to the fixed monthly tax rebates that are used to “untax” purchases up to the poverty level.^[3] The tax would be levied on all U.S. retail sales for personal consumption on new goods and services.

The two guests argue that the fair tax “is the only tax that totally untaxes the poor; the poor get a free ride totally across the board at the federal level under this plan.”

However, a national sales tax is a “regressive tax” meaning that as a percentage of income, the fair tax places a larger burden on lower income earners than higher income earners. An example is useful:

• Two shoppers walk into a computer store. One earns $50,000 a year, the other $100,000 a year.
• Both are looking at a computer that costs $2,000. Under the fair tax, $460 of the purchase price of this computer will go to the government as tax.
• $460 represents .92% of the income of the shopper who earns $50,000 per year.
• $460 represents .46% of the income of the shopper who earns $100,000 per year.
• The higher income earner pays a lower percentage of his income to the government in tax than the low income earner, making this a regressive tax.

One of the four macroeconomic goals governments aim to achieve in their policy making is more equal distribution of income. The fair tax, despite the arguments its advocates make, does not achieve a more equal distribution of income in America. It does place a smaller tax burden on the rich than the current system, but on the other hand America’s lower income earners bear a relatively larger burden of tax.

Discussion Questions:

1. Are taxes necessary? Why? What are some of the “public goods” tax revenues are used to provide in America and your country?
2. Discuss the claim that a progressive tax system stifles innovation, entrepreneurship and incentive to work.
3. On whom does the largest burden of a sales tax (like the fair tax) fall? Is a sales tax “fair”? Why or why not?

Related posts:

1. Regressive or progressive taxes: Which road to follow towards fiscal discipline?
2. Tax progressivity in the US: Do the rich pay more than their fair share? The evidence indicates NO!
3. The role of taxes in income re-distribution – another preview of my textbook

Does the Economy Self-Correct? – Welker’s Wikinomics Page

The debate in Washington over Obama’s fiscal stimulus package, which has now been re-written by both the House and the Senate, is ultimately one of the validity of orthodox economic theories. By voting for a nearly $1 trillion government spending bill, the Obama administration and Congress are clearly taking the position that an economy in recession will either not be able to correct itself, or will take too long to self-correct, thus the government is needed to accellerate the recovery process.

Washington’s stimulus package presents students and teachers of economics with an all too rare opportunity to put to the test the two competing hypotheses of macroeconomics: the Demand-side Theory versus the Supply-side Theory.

At the core of the long-running macroeconomic debate is the simple question, “Does the economy self-correct in times of recession?” The supply-side theory, attributed to the “classical” economists dating back to Adam Smith and David Ricardo, argues that the answer to this question is YES. The rationale between this laissez faire approach to macroeconomics is the following:

1. Falling demand in an economy means less output by firms, forcing them to lay off workers.
2. As inventories build up due to their inability to sell their output, firms will be forced to lower their prices, putting downward pressure on the price level in the economy (deflation).
3. High unemployment and falling prices eventually lead to workers in the economy being willing to accept lower wages.
4. Weak demand for commodities such as oil and minerals put downward pressure on raw material and energy prices faced by firms.
5. Falling wages and raw material prices mean more potential for profits for firms in various enterprises, even as overall demand in the economy is weak. Firms begin hiring workers at lower wages, and increase production to take advantage of lower input costs. Overall supply of goods and services in the economy begins to increase due to lower costs faced by firms in all sectors.
6. The downward spiral caused by weak aggregate demand, rising unemployment, falling prices for output, falling wages and commodity prices, is eventually reversed and turns into an upward spiral as firms hire more workers, employ more resources, creating more income and spending, moving the economy towards recovery and economic growth.

The supply-side theory of self-correction (so called because recovery results due to an outward shift of aggregate supply) outlined above depends on the downward flexibility of wages. If wages do NOT fall, as some demand-siders propose, then the idea that firms will eventually begin to hire more workers is busted, and unemployment will only continue to increase as overall demand remains weak.

Today, there is some evidence that wages in the United States may in fact be downwardly flexible.

GM Slashing 10,000 White-Collar Jobs, Cutting Pay – washingtonpost.com

…the base pay of higher-level U.S. executives will be lowered by 10 percent, while other salaried employees will face cuts of between 3 and 7 percent.

General Motors employees are beginning to accept lower wages. Rising unemployment, especially in the white collar sector, mean that the number of highly educated and skilled American workers unable to find work will grow as corporate layoffs continue.

A “shovel-ready” stimulus package from Washington may indeed help to “create or save” 3 million jobs, as Obama claims, but it is the self-correcting nature of markets due to flexible commodity prices and wages that will ultimately contribute to a recovery of the US economy. As prices of commodities fall, combined with lower wages for white collar workers and deflation in the overall economy, firms will find it profitable to begin employing resources at their lower costs, putting people back to work, stimulating spending through market forces.

Fiscal stimulus may accellerate the recovery process, but the threat it poses is the same threat posed by all forms of government intervention in the free market: that the nearly trillion dollars will go towards satisfying the priorities of politicians rather than the wants and needs of society as a whole, resulting in a misallocation of the nation’s resources towards goods, services, and infrastructure projects that are chosen by legislators, not the market itself. Stimulus is needed, but only the right kind. The recognition by politicians and the media that markets may also self-correct is also needed. News like GM’s wage cuts may sound dire, but the underlying implication of falling wages may be a sign that the US economy is already on the path to recovery, even before Washington has spent a single dollar on stimlus.

Related posts:

1. Stagflation – a blast from the past could mean trouble for US economy
2. Deflation: why lower prices spell doom for any economy!
3. Recession’s effects on small vs. large companies: some evidence in support of the Classical view of self-correction

This week the CEOs of the “Big Three” US auto makers boarded their private jets in Detroit and touched down in Washington to beg and plead in front of Congress for a “low-interest bridge loan” from the US government to help them avoid bankruptcy. They are asking Congress for $25 billion of taxpayer money to give them the chance to re-structure and re-equip themselves for the future.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Below are eight arguments based on basic economic principles for why a bailout of the United States automobile industry is a bad idea and is bound to fail:

1. Incentives matter: A bailout of the US auto industry ignores the basic economic principle that incentives matter. Individuals and firms respond to incentives, pursuing behavior that is likely to bring them the greatest rewards. In the face of falling demand for their product and ever-increasing competition from more efficient foreign producers, providing a $25 billion bailout creates a disincentive to drastically reduce costs and increase competitiveness, and an incentive to continue using tired old techniques and providing the same old models for which demand has declined among Americans for over a decade.
2. Comparative advantage: The basic economic principle of comparative advantage states that in an era of free trade and globalization, countries should produce the types of goods for which they have the lowest opportunity cost. Since the average American car of a particular class costs the Big Three $2000 more in wages and benefits for workers than its Japanese counterpart, it makes sense that Japan (and other lower-cost countries) produce more cars, and the Big Three produce less.
3. Efficient allocation of resources: The United Auto Workers Union has a member ship of over 400,000 workers. Since the 1970s the union has lost over 1 million workers. Clearly the US auto industry has been in decline for decades, a fact that should be taken as a sign: resources employed in America’s car industry are inefficient and represent a over-allocation of resources. A drastic down-sizing of the auto industry, while resulting in short-run hardships for the hundreds of thousands whose jobs will be lost, will in the long run strengthen the US economy as labor and other resources will be freed up to be employed in sectors in which the US has comparative advantage.
4. Economic Darwinism or “the survival of the most efficient”: America has stood for free trade in the world since helping found GATT in 1948 and later the WTO. The gains from embracing free trade are shared among all stakeholders in the economy. Consumers enjoy lower prices (thus higher real income), firms enjoy access to cheaper inputs and larger markets for their products, and governments enjoy the increased tax revenues from rising incomes driven by export-led economic growth. To bail out an uncompetitive, inefficient, and long-declining industry is to spit in the eye of free trade and denies America any moral suasion it may hold in the future over potential trading nations in our attempt to open their markets to our nation’s products. To protect our own dying industry now will send a clear message to our trading partners. “America does NOT stand for free trade”. If we believe in free trade and the allocative power of markets, then we must let the dinosaurs of American industry meet the fate the natural selection of the marketplace has determined for it.
5. The benefits enjoyed by the few represent costs born by the many: A bailout by the US government of the auto industry will protect a few hundred thousand jobs for a few years at the most but spells a reduction in the disposable incomes and spending power of millions for years to come. The US does not have $25 billion laying around to give the Big Three, which means the money must be borrowed. Increased government borrowing raises interest rates now (further tightening the credit markets) and will result in increased taxes down the road. All government debt must eventually be paid off, and in the immediate future interest on this debt must be paid directly from tax revenue. A $25 billion bailout is the same as a subsidy, meaning it redistributes income and welfare from consumers to producers. Millions are asked to sacrifice for the continued survival of a few hundred thousand in an industry that has failed to evolve in a global auto market that has seen increased competition and efficiency from foreign firms for decades.
6. Moral hazard: Bailing out the Big Three today represent a classic case of moral hazard. When American industries fail to take steps to increase their efficiency and remain competitive in the face of increased global competition, they find themselves not surprisingly on the brink of collapse. To reward these firms by taking money out of Americans’ pockets and handing it to them to do as they will, we send the wrong message and create the wrong incentives in the American economy. The message is: “Don’t worry, the market doesn’t choose the winners and losers in the economy, the government does, and certain industries are too big to fail”.
7. Market failure, or Firm Failure?: The fate of the auto industry is in the hands of the US government. But so is the fate of the free market. My fear now is that the pendulum will swing too far to the left in America’s state of panic over the ill-fated downfall of the financial markets, rooted in the irrational exuberance and over-leveraging of big financial institutions. The failure of the financial markets, however, is an entirely different story from that of a dinosaur industry like automobiles. The Big Three have had decades to reform themselves, lower their costs, improve their products, and remain competitive. THEY have failed, NOT the market. Government intervention is necessary in instances of market failure, but NOT IN CASES OF FIRMS’ FAILURE TO COMPETE IN A WELL FUNCTIONING MARKET like the global auto industry.
8. Inflexible labor markets: I saw the president of the UAW on the news today giving 101 reasons why the government should approve a bailout deal for the Big Three. In fact, the unions that supposedly represent American Auto Workers are a big part of the problem the industry is facing. For decades the UAW has fought against wage and benefit cuts for auto workers, lobbying instead for higher tariffs and other barriers aimed at keeping foreign cars out of the country. This anti-competitive behavior is a major reason the Big Three cannot compete with European and Asian car makers today. Wage inflexibility leads to higher unemployment. Unions keep wages from going down, leaving the Big Three with one of two choices: Drastically downsize your workforce and employ fewer high paid auto workers, or beg the government for a multi-billion dollar subsidy to that the unions can be placated and you can survive for a couple more years until you’re in the same situation all over again. The unions helped cause the problem, now they should pay the price by experiencing the downsizing their demands inevitably foretold.

The US government should allow the free market to function and let the dinosaurs go extinct. Cars will still be made in America, they’ll just be made by the better, more efficient firms that emerge from bankruptcy when this is all over, as well as the numerous foreign firms already making cars in the US. Survival of the most efficient, that’s what markets are all about. Allowing the market to work will strengthen the US auto industry far more than a “short-term low-interest bridge loan” ever will, it will free up labor and capital resources to be employed by industries the country is better at, and make sure household income is NOT reallocated to inefficient firms to be squandered on the manufacture of a product for which demand has steadily declined for the last decade plus.

Related posts:

1. The questions no one seems to be asking about the auto industry bailout!
2. American auto makers insult the intelligence of high school Econ students!
3. A call FOR protectionism!

FT.com | The Economists’ Forum | The case for forward-looking protectionism in the US

Free trade is an ideal. This is a theme of my IB Economics class which I emphasize repeatedly during year two of the course. Free trade, defined as the exchange of goods, services, resources, and financial assets based on the principle of comparative advantage, results in a more efficient allocation of the world’s resources, an increase in total world output and welfare, and increases the opportunity for growth and development for all countries that prescribe to its principles. This is the ideal, at least.

In the real world, free trade is rarely practiced. Free trade agreements between nations represent managed trade; the selected removal of protections such as tariffs, quotas and subsidies on the exchange of particular goods does not represent free trade, rather managed trade. The problem with free trade in the real world is simply that it has never been truly practiced, therefore the adjustments that both developed and developing countries would have to undergo to adopt widespread free trade would be extremely disruptive both economically and socially. Entire industries would disappear from the developed countries as manufacturing resources were reallocated to low cost countries. Poor countries trying to build their manufacturing industries would lose any competitive advantage offered by protectionism, forcing their “infant industries” to wither and die in the face of global competition from countries that long ago achieved economies of scale in manufacturing. Farmers used to heavy subsidies would see their livelihoods disappear as the world’s food would be sourced from the countries with true comparative advantages in agriculture. Simply stated, the social costs of the widespread adoption of free trade are not politically palatable, thus leaders have only hesitantly pursued this ideal on the world stage.

For decades, America has stood for the ideal of free trade, proselytizing its advantages and urging developing countries to reduce or remove their barriers to the free flow of resources and goods from nation to nation. Today, however, the United States faces the very fate free trade prophesized as its own automobile industries teeters on the edge of collapse. As many as 3 million American jobs stand to be lost if the auto industry goes under. Today, America faces the ultimate test of its will to stand for and defend free trade in the world. Should America erect new barriers to trade, bail out its auto industry, and save this dying sector from collapse to avoid the political hardships its death would incur? Or should America stand for the ideal of market liberalization and allow the auto industry to disolve as the principle of comparative advantage indicates it should?

The question is dire, and it’s one that Barack Obama will be forced to address early in his term as president. Cambridge economcis professor Ha-Joon Chang argues the case for protectionism by America in this time of economic turmoil:

Mr Obama’s trade policy… is already causing controversy. He has vowed to protect American jobs and even argued for re-negotiating the NAFTA. There is already some hand wringing among free-trade economists, worrying that his protectionist policies may destroy the world trading system in the same way the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariffs of 1930 did after the Great Depression. They counsel that the US should maintain its historical commitment to free trade.

However, contrary to what most people think, the US is the true home of protectionism. Between the 1830s and the 1940s, against superior European competition, the US developed its industries behind literally the highest tariff wall in the world, with the average industrial tariff rate ranging between 35% and 55%. Even the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs were not an aberration – the average US industrial tariff in 1931 was, at 48%, well within the historical range.

Moreover, the theory that justified such protectionism, namely, the ‘infant industry’ argument, had been first developed by none other than the first Treasury Secretary of the US – Alexander Hamilton (that’s the guy you see on the $10 bill). Hamilton argued that producers in relatively backward economies needed to be protected and nurtured through tariffs, subsidies, and other government policies before they mature and can compete with producers from more economically developed countries.

Of course, the protectionism that Mr Obama is advocating is protection to ease the adjustment of mature industries, rather than to promote infant industries. The case for such protectionism is not as overwhelming as that of infant industry protection. However, well-designed and time-bound protection of mature industries can facilitate, rather than hinder, trade adjustment and industrial upgrading. Japan and some European countries in the aftermath of the 1970s Oil Shocks come to mind.

Mr Obama should use protectionism in a similarly forward-looking way. Industries that can be revived through re-tooling of its factories and re-training of its workers should be given protection, but only if they fulfill certain conditions regarding investment and training. Industries that have no future should be given strictly temporary protection to ease phasing-out through orderly liquidation and redundancy.

…Keeping its market open is not enough for the US to play a genuinely positive role in the world trading system. The US should also stop pushing for trade liberalization in developing countries and give them the chance to use (intelligently-designed, of course) infant industry protection, which it invented and benefited so much from. Mr Obama should take a lead in creating a world trading system that allows asymmetric protectionism between the rich countries and the poor countries, with the latter protecting their markets more and gradually opening up in line with their economic development.

All these call for a much more activist role for the US government than it has been the norm. Providing protectionism to facilitate structural changes, and not just to protect existing jobs, would require a much closer coordination between trade policy and those policies to upgrade American industries, such as R&D support and worker training. Redesigning the welfare state as a vehicle to promote skills upgrading and labor mobility would push the US government into an uncharted territory.

These are big challenges. However, the US cannot continue its peculiar mixture of free-trade mythology and uncoordinated, ‘reactive’ protectionism that has served ordinary Americans and the developing nations so poorly.

Mr Obama has turned a new chapter in US history by becoming the country’s first Afro-American president. He will turn a new chapter in world history if he can come up with a forward-looking protectionist strategy that that both protects American jobs better in the long run and help developing countries develop faster.

Discussion Questions:

1. What is the difference between the protectionism America needs today and the protectionism it used in the late 19th and early 20th centuries?
2. How could protectionism be used responsibly by developing countries to promote economic growth and development?
3. Professor Chang argues that responsible protectionism should allow industries with no future to be phased out “through orderly liquidation and redundancy”. What does he mean by this and why is such a policy so hard to accomplish politically?

Related posts:

1. Protectionism’s many weaknesses
2. The politics of free trade vs. protectionism
3. IB: US protectionism threatens trade liberalization – and a little irony to stir things up

An endorsement of Barack Obama | It’s time | The Economist

From this week’s Economist:

For all the shortcomings of the campaign, both John McCain and Barack Obama offer hope of national redemption. Now America has to choose between them. The Economist does not have a vote, but if it did, it would cast it for Mr Obama. We do so wholeheartedly: the Democratic candidate has clearly shown that he offers the better chance of restoring America’s self-confidence. But we acknowledge it is a gamble. Given Mr Obama’s inexperience, the lack of clarity about some of his beliefs and the prospect of a stridently Democratic Congress, voting for him is a risk. Yet it is one America should take, given the steep road ahead.

Follow the link above to read about the reasons why the usually right-leaning publication has thrown its endorsement towards the Democratic candidate.

Related posts:

1. More on Obama, Clinton, and the “gas tax holiday”
2. Obama – probably not a “supply-sider”
3. You Make The Video Call: McCain vs. Obama on Free Trade

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.

Related posts:

1. U.S. Financial Crisis!! What Is Really Happening?
2. The Costs of the Bailout, More Government Debt
3. Federal Bailout of The U.S. Economy: Who’s To Blame?

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

Related posts:

1. Big government, small government? What, exactly, do the Republicans stand for?

If Economics were a required high school course in every state in the United States, our politicians would not be able to to “BS” us to get our vote.

I am actually an independent voter having voted for George Bush in the first election in 2000 and having voted against Bush in 2004. The two video clips below are NOT a political statement since I am unsure who I will vote for this November. I provide these two clips only to show you how politicians can say different things on the same economic issue.

Both political candidates speak of “NAFTA” (North American Free Trade Agreement) which is a free trade agreement signed by the U.S., Mexico, and Canada back in 1993. There are very few economists, if any, that believe the agreement was bad for any of the three nations. But, listen to the perspectives of the two candidates for U.S. president:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

What are your reactions to this video? Are both candidates correct? Is one candidate misleading us on this one issue to get your vote?

Related posts:

1. McCain vs. Obama on the costs and benefits of free trade
2. Mankiw on free trade in politics
3. What’s Korea’s “beef” with the US on free trade?

Managing Globalization: To reduce poverty, money isn’t everything – International Herald Tribune

Two developing countries: Venezuela and Brazil. Two ideologies underpinning economic growth and development: command in Venezuela versus free market in Brazil. Which system has worked better for the people of these two large South American countries?

How much can governments do to fight poverty? In South America, a couple of answers are emerging in the growing economies of Venezuela and Brazil. Both governments have publicly pledged billions of dollars to raise living standards – but have they succeeded?

Overall income is moving upward in both countries, if for different reasons. Venezuela is riding the black tide of high-priced oil, while Brazil’s relatively firm economic policies have built confidence in its business prospects among both locals and foreigners.

The president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, has portrayed himself as an ardent socialist and a disciple of Fidel Castro. Reducing inequality is fundamental to his agenda, whether by dividing up Venezuela’s oil wealth or, as he has obliquely suggested this month, through land reform. His consolidation of executive power has brought Venezuela closer to a centrally planned economy and, as such, has given him the opportunity to invest heavily in social programs.

But identifying the results isn’t easy. The poverty rate in Venezuela was about 50 percent when Chávez’s presidency began in 1999, according to the government’s own figures. Since then, roughly equal numbers of people have fallen into and out of poverty at various times, with a spike to more than 60 percent in 2003 and a drop below 40 percent in 2005…

Rodríguez also questioned whether Chávez’s programs could be completely effective because of the way they were managed. Some of the world’s most successful initiatives for improving the well-being of the poor, he said, linked families’ benefit payments to useful actions like their children’s attendance in school or visits to the doctor. In Venezuela, he said, the link is to political loyalty instead.

“The level of political polarization has become so high that not only is loyalty to the regime the key determinant of your access to benefits, it is also the key determinant of your capacity to be involved in the administration of those benefits to others,” Rodríguez said.

One example of this problem was a program intended to improve literacy. “The government had no system of accountability to monitor performance other than the reports of its own administrators,” Rodríguez said. “When program administrators learned that it was more important to show loyalty to the regime than to effectively run the program, any incentives that they had to administer resources efficiently, from a social point of view, disappeared.”

In Venezuela, president Chavez’s socialist inspired, command policies, paid for by the sale of expensive oil to the rest of the world have led to benefits primarily for those citizens willing to show political loyalty to Chavez and his party. Hard work and productivity is not rewarded as much as loyalty and support for the government. This system of incentives leads to some poor outcomes. The result? Only mediocre improvements in poverty rates, literacy, employment and health of the people.

In Brazil, where free market principles underlie much of the economic development policies, monetary benefits for development workers and the families they serve are linked not to political affiliation but to actual behavior of households and government employees. The result, not surprisingly, has been real improvements in education, health, and poverty levels amongst Brazilians.

Meanwhile, in Brazil, progress appears to have been more widespread. Figures compiled last year by Rômulo Paes de Sousa of the Ministry of Social Development and Fight Against Hunger, covering the period from 1999 through 2004, painted a rosy picture: School attendance was up, while illiteracy was down. Life expectancy was up, but hospital visits were down. Employment was up, and child labor was down.

Again, however, it’s difficult to say with certainty where the credit should go… [perhaps] to the simple fact that Brazil’s monetary benefits for families are indeed linked to actions like attendance in school, prenatal care and childhood vaccinations?

The lesson here? In a command economy like Venezuela’s, in which the government decides how resources are to be allocated, it appears that real improvements in people’s lives are not as important as political loyalty. Because most people involved in economic development work for the government, they focus on making themselves appear more dedicated and loyal to president Chavez, in order to make sure they get paid more and promoted up the ladder.

In Brazil’s free market economy, on the other hand, rewards are based on performance, not political loyalty. Brazilians have enjoyed access to a wider variety of efficiently run development programs than Venezuelans, despite Hugo Chavez’s pledge to alleviate poverty. Correct incentives explain why the market system is more efficient and effective than a command system, and the examples of Venezuela and Brazil illustrate this observation quite nicely

Discussion Questions:

1. Why do command economies fail efficiently allocate resources to where they are needed the most?
2. What does Brazil do that Venezuela does not that has led to real improvements in people’s lives?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Related posts:

1. The “bottom billion”, aid, and strategies for achieving economic development
2. Meet Jasper – a snapshot of poverty in Southeast Asia

Palin’s Intellectual Bipolar Disorder – Mises Economics Blog

Jeffrey Tucker at the Mises Economics Blog wonders what’s up with the conflicting statements coming from Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin:

One the one hand, she assails Obama as favoring big government, more taxes, more control from Washington, and everyone goes nuts denouncing government. Then only a few sentences later, she is blasting Obama for not favoring war enough, for wanting to give people too many rights, for not wanting military victory over the entire planet. People cheer that too.

Do these people not realize that the same government that controls from Washington is also the institution that she is proposing have a world empire? Do these people not realize that global military occupation costs money that comes out of the pockets of American citizens? Do they not realize that a government that cares nothing about the rights of foreigners is not going to have much respect for the rights of its citizens either?

Sarah Palin – VP acceptance speech – Sep 3, 2008 pt1

Palin makes it sound so simple: Obama wants to take money out of Americans’ pockets and make us all poorer. Here’s his plan from Obama’s own website:

Related posts:

1. McCain and the Republicans: fiscal conservatives? Think again…
2. “If bs were currency, Sarah Palin could bail out Wall Street by herself”

Thanks to my friend Jerry from Shanghai for posting this cartoon to his Facebook profile!

How timely, just as my year 2 IB Economics class is studying the pitfalls of expansionary fiscal policy in times of economic slowdowns. Now, many critics would say that Clinton was the luckiest president of recent decades as he happened to ride a wave of technological innovation fueled by the internet that led to unprecedented grown in income and tax revenue during the 1990s. Sustained 5% growth combined with a period of relative peace on the foreign fronts in between the two Gulf Wars allowed Clinton to balance the budget and begin putting a dent in the country’s $3 trillion deficit during his final years in office.

Along come the “fiscally conservative” Republicans and their faithful leader GWB, just in time to evaporate our budget surplus and add $6 trillion to our national debt over the next eight years. Today, after a long period of “fiscal conservatism” the debt stands at $9.3 trillion, and last year’s budget deficit of $400+ billion broke a record for the largest gap between tax revenue and government spending in US history.

Yeah, you can blame it one the times: a War on Terror costing the US roughly a billion bucks a day, a slowdown in new technology creation, diminishing returns on internet investments, out-sourcing of American industry and jobs, yada yada… but the cartoon does hold some truth. The Democratic Party, long labeled as the “tax and spend liberals”, managed to do what few other administrations have done since the ’60s in balancing the budget, proving that the old stereotype is simply wrong.

Some now consider the Democrats the fiscally conservative party, based only on the simple observation that they tend to spend closer to what they collect in taxes. The Republicans, on the other hand, have had no qualms about spending what they DON’T collect in taxes, in other words, running up huge budget deficits through borrowing from the public and abroad. Are the Republicans the an even worse incarnation of the “tax and spend liberals”? Are they the “DON’T tax and STILL spend Conservatives”?

Discussion questions:

1. How did the Bush administration’s $160 billion “fiscal stimulus package” that sent $600 checks to every American worker demonstrate the Republican party’s willingness to deficit spend.
2. What effect will deficit spending by the government have on interest rates and private investment in the economy? What is this effect known as?
3. In times of weak aggregate demand, as in the US earlier this year, what sort of approach would a “supply-sider” recommend as an alternative to Bush’s deficit-financed expansionary fiscal policy?

Related posts:

1. Too much debt or not enough demand? A summary of the debate over America’s fiscal future
2. The “teenager tax” – why expansionary fiscal policy just ain’t fair!
3. Fiscal stimulus, the Swiss way

Capitalism and democracy: friends or foes? | Free exchange | Economist.com

How Capitalism Is Killing Democracy – Foreign Policy (abstract only)

“Why is FREEDOM so important in a market economy? If people in society are not free, can a market economy truly succeed?”.

Friday’s class discussion focused on the different answers to the basic economic questions offered by centrally planned versus market economies. 

The question I left them to ponder over the weekend had to do with an apparent paradox visible in China today: that of a free market economy seemingly thriving in a society where political and social freedoms are severely limited by the communist dictatorship. It has long been claimed that free markets will be followed closely by political freedom, and vis versa. The two are thought to go hand in hand. According to the Economist.com’s blog, Free Exchange:

The late Milton Friedman emphasized that economic freedom promotes political freedom and is also necessary for the sustainability of political freedom over time. His underlying logic is that competitive capitalism separates economic power from political power. One could point to Chile, Taiwan and South Korea as examples where Friedman’s logic seems to hold.

So if, as Friedman said, free markets lend themselves to free societies, then how has China’s thriving market economy not resulted in a freer society, even after 30 years of economic liberalization? Robert Reich, writing in the Foreign Policy Journal examines the issue in some depth:

Conventional wisdom holds that where either capitalism or democracy flourishes, the other must soon follow. Yet today, their fortunes are beginning to diverge. Capitalism, long sold as the yin to democracy’s yang, is thriving, while democracy is struggling to keep up. China, poised to become the world’s third largest capitalist nation this year after the United States and Japan, has embraced market freedom, but not political freedom. Many economically successful nations ”from Russia to Mexico” are democracies in name only. They are encumbered by the same problems that have hobbled American democracy in recent years, allowing corporations and elites buoyed by runaway economic success to undermine the government’s capacity to respond to citizens’ concerns.

Of course, democracy means much more than the process of free and fair elections. It is a system for accomplishing what can only be achieved by citizens joining together to further the common good. But though free markets have brought unprecedented prosperity to many, they have been accompanied by widening inequalities of income and wealth, heightened job insecurity, and environmental hazards such as global-warming.

What can explain the recent divergence of capitalism and democracy in countries like China, Russia and Mexico? The Free Exchange blog explains:

The cause of this divergence, Mr Reich contends, is that companies seeking an advantage over global competitors have invested increasing amounts of money in government lobbying, public relations and bribery. This process of corporations’ writing their own rules has weakened the ability of average citizens to have their voices heard through the democratic process.

So it appears that as capitalism and free markets have flourished, freedom of the individual has been trumped by freedom of the corporation to lobby and thus influence government into creating favorable environments for investment and growth, often times at the expense of society’s health and the best interests of the public as a whole. We will learn a term for this kind of activity in AP and IB Economics: rent-seeking behavior.

As firms grown larger and industrial and commercial power becomes concentrated in powerful multi-national corporations, the priorities of governments seem to be shifting away from individual freedoms and civil rights and towards the interests of the corporate world, whose money and influence run deep through the veins of the world’s governments.

So perhaps I was wrong. Maybe Milton Friedman was wrong too. Perhaps the 21st Century has bred a new relationship where free market capitalism is wed not to democracy, but to a new kind of corporatocracy, a term used by Noam Chomsky, in which governments bow not to the will of the people they govern, rather to the pressures from corporate entities. Freedom and justice for all (firms, that is). Gives you something to think about, huh

Discussion Questions:

1. Do free markets lead to free societies?
2. Is political freedom a prerequisite for a successful market economy?
3. Has “corporatocracy” surpassed democracy as the dominant influence in the rich, developed countries of the world?
4. In what ways could economic strength come at the expense of individual freedom?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Related posts:

1. When markets work…
2. You Make The Video Call: McCain vs. Obama on Free Trade
3. America: Land of the free, home of “jackass” economists