Thinking About Markets

Posted on November 18, 2008 by Tom

Now that folks have had at least a bit of time to reflect on the financial crisis on Wall Street, some good historical perspectives are starting to pop up, such as this Niall Ferguson Vanity Fair piece. Toward the end, Ferguson makes an excellent point about market economies that is not widely understood:

The modern financial system is the product of centuries of economic evolution. Banks transformed money from metal coins into accounts, allowing ever larger aggregations of borrowing and lending. From the Renaissance on, government bonds introduced the securitization of streams of interest payments.

From the 17th century on, equity in corporations could be bought and sold in public stock markets. From the 18th century on, central banks slowly learned how to moderate or exacerbate the business cycle. From the 19th century on, insurance was supplemented by futures, the first derivatives. And from the 20th century on, households were encouraged by government to skew their portfolios in favor of real estate.

Economies that combined all these institutional innovations performed better over the long run than those that did not, because financial intermediation generally permits a more efficient allocation of resources than, say, feudalism or central planning. For this reason, it is not wholly surprising that the Western financial model tended to spread around the world, first in the guise of imperialism, then in the guise of globalization.

Yet money’s ascent has not been, and can never be, a smooth one. On the contrary, financial history is a roller-coaster ride of ups and downs, bubbles and busts, manias and panics, shocks and crashes. The excesses of the Age of Leverage—the deluge of paper money, the asset-price inflation, the explosion of consumer and bank debt, and the hypertrophic growth of derivatives—were bound sooner or later to produce a really big crisis.

In short, markets are imperfect and sometimes quite messy. But they have stood the test of time in proving more efficient than the alternatives. Don’t give up on them just yet.

Stossel’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics

Posted on October 23, 2008 by Tom

If you didn’t have the opportunity to watch or record it last Friday, then watch the following six YouTube segments of John Stossel’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics when you have the time (the other five segments are below the break). The program is television at its best presenting and analyzing key issues involving government regulation of business and the impact of that regulation on the creation of jobs and wealth. Enjoy:

Continue reading →

Refracting Enron Myopia

Posted on October 14, 2008 by Tom

One of the more entertaining aspects of the current Wall Street financial crisis has been reading how some of the business columnists have been interpreting it.

Take, for example, Houston Chronicle business columnist, Loren Steffy.

You may remember him from his acerbic coverage of the trial of former Enron executives, Jeff Skilling and the late Ken Lay, or his perpetuation of the Enron Myth regardless of the circumstances.

Dismissing me as an Enron apologist, Steffy regularly disputed my long-held theory that the run-on-the-bank that felled Enron could well happen to any trust-based business.

Apparently confused by the fact that what happened to Enron has now happened to Bear Stearns, Freddie and Fannie, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, AIG and any number of other trust-based businesses impacted by the current credit crunch, Steffy reaches for insight from one of the fellows who set the stage for this mess:

Investigators are poring over the failed firms, looking for signs that executives misled shareholders. Some evidence may be found, but Sam Buell, the former prosecutor who led the effort to indict Enron’s Jeff Skilling, doesn’t think we’ll see widespread prosecutions.

“It’s not a conspiracy if everybody’s in on it,” said Buell, who’s now a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. “In order to have a fraud conspiracy, you’ve got to have some effort by one group to deceive another group.”

In this case, individual investors may not have understood what Wall Street bankers were doing with complex debt securities, but those charged with safeguarding the marketplace were certainly aware. Regulators knew and approved. So did credit rating agencies. And auditors, both internal and external.

With a mouse click, investors could find public documents that described the debt instruments with hundreds of pages of detail. [. . .]

“If everybody’s in a bubble mentality, if they’re betting the price of real estate will keep going up, disclosure doesn’t address the problem of what happens when all those assumptions turn out to be wrong,” Buell said. “Everybody knows what they’re doing. They’re just making bad decisions.”

Yes, you read that correctly. Buell implies that Skilling was guilty of criminal conspiracy because not “everybody” was “in on it” at the time Enron was making its supposedly opaque disclosures. However, since “everybody’s in on it” now, Buell doesn’t think there will be widespread prosecutions because “[i]t’s not a conspiracy if everybody’s in on it.”

With such reasoning, is there any doubt now why this outfit generated this record?

For the record, I actually hope Buell is right this time that few businesspeople are prosecuted for misjudging business risk. But for a more rational explanation of how financial regulation fits into the current crisis, check out these Larry Ribstein posts here, here and here and this masterful one by Arnold Kling.

Say what?

Posted on October 9, 2008 by Tom

As noted earlier here and here, the lack of leadership involved in the current credit crisis and related Treasury bailout really has been appalling. You don’t think so? Check this out:

Awkward Loan Interview

Posted on October 1, 2008 by Tom

The proposed Treasury bailout leads to an awkward loan interview:

This is Leadership?

Posted on September 30, 2008 by Tom

I’ve already said my piece on the proposed Treasury Bailout of Wall Street, so I won’t belabor that view.

In the meantime, there are much better places to keep up with the minute-by-minute political developments on the proposed bailout — for example, check out Clusterstock, DealBreaker and Felix Salmon for astute and up-to-the-minute analysis.

However, one point from my previous post deserves further review — that is, circumstances such as this provide us with a revealing view of our political leaders.

Do they inspire positive and collaborative action in difficult times for the better good of society?

Or do they attempt to generate support for their political position through fear-mongering and demagoguery?

In my view, President Bush’s handling of the negotiations over the proposed bailout has been abysmal. As Jeff Matthews points out:

The President’s unfortunate choice of words—”this sucker could go down”—carry the same deer-in-headlights quality as his televised speech to the American people last week, in which he used the word “panic,” as we recall.

At a minimum, it makes you nervous; at a maximum, it makes you want to throw up first and sell everything second.What happened to the heroic, forward-looking rhetoric great leaders are supposed to provide in times of crisis?

FDR gave us “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” Churchill gave us “We shall fight on the beaches.” George Bush cruises in with “This sucker could go down.”

We wonder: has a more irresponsible sentence been uttered, by anyone, during this entire crisis?

John Carney reports that President Bush wasn’t any better today in responding to the House’s rejection of the proposed bailout:

“We put forth a plan that was big because we got a big problem,” Bush just said, sitting in a chair placed before a fireplace in the White House. He’s meeting with advisers, he said. “I’m disappointed with the vote in Congress,” the president said.

Was that his version of FDR’s famous fireside chats? Bush looked annoyed he was being bothered with this stuff.

This from a President who failed to persuade more than a third of his own party members in the House for his position in response to a financial emergency?

Glaeser on the State of the City

Posted on July 28, 2008 by Tom

Harvard urban economist Ed Glaeser’s NY Sun op-ed last week on Houston’s success in maintaining an affordable standard of living generated a lively debate among the blogosphere’s urban policy wonks, both for and against. So, Glaeser tees up the Houston debate again yesterday at the end of this Wall $treet Journal interview regarding the state of the city:

If you think about the lifestyle of ordinary Americans living on the fringe of Houston or Dallas, for example, compared to what their lifestyle would be in an older European city — living in a walk-up apartment there compared to a 2,500-square-foot house here they bought for $130,000 with a 24-minute commute — it’s extraordinary in the low-cost areas of this country what a $60,000 family income gets you.

There’s a reason Atlanta, Dallas, Houston and Phoenix are our four fastest-growing areas. They offer an astonishingly high standard of living for ordinary Americans.

New York City is a great place to be really rich and not a terrible place to be really poor, but it’s a pretty hard place to live on $60,000 a year. You don’t experience anywhere near the basic standard of living you would in Houston on the same income.

Ryan Avent is still not convinced.

Another innovative California industry

Posted on July 28, 2008 by Tom

The New Yorker’s David Samuels reports on how medical marijuana is changing a popular California industry:

Since 1996, when a referendum known as Proposition 215 was approved by California voters, it has been legal, under California state law, for authorized patients to possess or cultivate the drug. The proposition also allowed a grower to cultivate marijuana for a patient, as long as he had been designated a “primary caregiver” by that patient. Although much of the public discussion centered on the needs of patients with cancer, AIDS, and other diseases that are synonymous with extraordinary suffering, the language of the proposition was intentionally broad, covering any medical condition for which a licensed physician might judge marijuana to be an appropriate remedy—insomnia, say, or attention-deficit disorder. [. . .]

In 2003, the California State Legislature passed Senate Bill 420. The law was intended to clear up some of the confusion caused by Proposition 215, which had failed to specify how patients who could not grow their own pot were expected to obtain the drug, and how much pot could be cultivated for medical purposes. The law permitted any Californian with a doctor’s note to own up to six mature marijuana plants, or to possess up to half a pound of processed weed, which could be obtained from a patients’ collective or coöperative—terms that were not precisely defined in the statute. It also permitted a primary caregiver to be paid “reasonable compensation” for services provided to a qualified patient “to enable that person to use marijuana.” [. . .]

A drug-policy analyst named Jon Gettman recently estimated that in 2006 Californians grew more than twenty million pot plants. He reckoned that between 1981 and 2006 domestic marijuana production increased tenfold, making pot the leading cash crop in America, displacing corn. A 2005 State Department report put the country’s marijuana crop at twenty-two million pounds. The street value of California’s crop alone may be as high as fourteen billion dollars. [. . .]

I recently spent six months, off and on, with ["Captain"] Blue [a pot broker] — at his apartment, in private homes, on farms, in pot grow rooms, and in other places where “medical marijuana” is produced, traded, sold, and consumed in California. During that time, I saw thousands of Tibetan prayer flags. The flags identify their owners with serenity and the conscious path, rather than with the sinister world of urban dope dealers, who flaunt muscles and guns, and charge exorbitant prices for mediocre product. For Blue and tens of thousands of like-minded individuals, Proposition 215 presented an opportunity to participate in a legally sanctioned experiment in altered living. The people I met in the high-end ganja business had an affinity for higher modes of thinking and being, including vegetarianism and eating organic food, practicing yoga, avoiding prescription drugs in favor of holistic healing methods, traveling to Indonesia and Thailand, fasting, and experimenting with hallucinogenic drugs. Many were also financially savvy, working long hours and making six-figure incomes.

Read the entire article. Meanwhile, take a moment to read about one of the many costly reminders of the misguided nature of American drug prohibition policy.