Tag: economics

Categories
Accountability folly too much government

Our Limited Abilities Require Other Limits

Last week I asked, in effect, Who regulates the regulators?

It does no good to say “the people,” because — as much as I want government to be ultimately controlled by the people — if you’re like me, you don’t know enough to micro-​regulate high finance.

But there’s something I didn’t mention last Wednesday: The regulators don’t have that knowledge, either.

Even keeping eyeballs on simple fraud turns out to be difficult. Trying to micromanage high finance? Much harder.

But the congenital inability of regulators properly to regulate doesn’t mean that we must consign ourselves to a never-​ending, Sisyphean cycle of boom and bust. 

Many of the instruments of the modern federal government try to do too much. These very institutions, because they hubristically attempt to regulate away boom bust deliver just the opposite. They make sure booms go bust in messy ways. 

Here’s a fresh example: “Lack of regulation” wasn’t the main reason for this latest bust. More important? The “too big to fail” subsidy. By giving Wall Street, big bankers, and financial intermediaries the impression that they would be bailed out in case of implosion, those very same folks behaved in such a way to risk said implosion, and thus needing the bailouts.

Which happened.

Which started the cycle all over.

Only by going back to basics can we improve our long-​term economic outlook — not by government micromanaging the economy.

Nicely, citizens like you and me can understand these “basics.”

And defend them.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets responsibility

Economist-​in-​Chief

I’m not an economist. So take my advice with a grain of salt. Or two.

But hold the pepper. I’m not the only non-​economist. Our president isn’t one, either.

Sure, he has economists on his staff, but I’ve more than just begun to doubt their wisdom.

Take his latest advice to banks: “Go back and take a third and fourth look” at operations … and “explore every responsible way” to put their money in the hands of small and medium-​sized businesses with current loan applications.

We can all agree it’d be nice to get rolling like we were before the bust.

But I bet bankers are trying to learn something from the bust, something about booms. They have every reason to be super-​cautious. What if the current situation remains a house of cards, one that could come a‑crashin’ at any moment? Lending money out now, in questionable cases, would be a horrid waste of capital.

I know that presidents are now cheerleaders for prosperity. One of their jobs, in the modern interventionist economy, is to pretend that prosperity is always right around the corner. Even if it isn’t.

But bankers have a different job. That job is to not lose money. And if they are now afraid tht in making a loan they might not get their money back, no amount of “advice” from our alleged economist-​in-​chief should change their minds. It’s called “fiduciary responsibility.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets

A Cato Alert

President Obama suggests that all economists agree that the best way to dig the economy out of its giant hole is to dig that hole faster and harder. Too much debt? Pile on more. Consumers not “buying enough”? Tax and borrow more to spend more to subsidize more buying.

I don’t get it. Were I Robinson Crusoe on a desert island I sure would want to consume. Berries and bananas, fish, maybe deer.

But I’d also want to produce. I’d make tools to help me to gather and hunt, and to prepare and store food. Desiring shelter, I’d realize that I can’t live in a hut unless I first build the hut.

On Crusoe’s island, there would be no politicians around to tax me to death before I could finish the hut. But here in our mixed economy, there sure is.

The Cato Institute, a D.C.-based think tank, has been spreading the word that not all economists believe that the best way to improve the economy is to nuke taxpayers and producers. At Cato​.org I’ve heard economists insist that bailouts have NEVER worked to stimulate the economy. Further, Cato has taken out a full-​page ad in major newspapers, like the Washington Post and the New York Times, disputing the notion that the solution to the recession is a massive government spending spree.

The Cato statement is signed by hundreds of economists. Many more signed it after the ad was published.

Will it help? I have the audacity to hope.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets

Fear of Falling

The fear of falling is innate. Newborns have it.

The fear of falling prices is different.

What? Who fears falling prices?

Politicians and investors and the big boys in big business, that’s who. When all sorts of prices fall, it means that their plans for ever-​upward growth hit the hard rocks of economic reality. And these downturns sure can hurt. A lot.

Yet there’s an awful lot of evidence that you just have to weather these periods. You shouldn’t panic. And you definitely should not try to “prop things up.”

But that is exactly what politicians generally try to do in an economic downturn — they try to prevent some set of prices from falling.

Post-​Great War depression in Britain, and America’s own beginning of the Great Depression … in both downturns there were huge political forces at work, trying to prevent a sector of prices from hitting their natural floors. In those cases, it was mainly wages that got propped up.

The effect? Massive unemployment.

I’m no economic historian, so I hate to tread these waters. But I’m not going to play Santayana’s fool, forgetting history and then forced to repeat it like Sisyphus’s rock-​and-​roll classic on permanent skip-​repeat/​skip-​repeat.

So remember: Propping up prices in the past didn’t work. They won’t work now with housing.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Common Sense free trade & free markets

Why Plant Crops?

With the financial crisis and bailout bill, our energy problems have been pushed off the front page. But they’re not gone. We still need energy to run our cars, homes, businesses, you name it.

So, I wanted to address a goofy argument that has been made a lot about drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, way up north in Alaska. Some say that we shouldn’t drill because it won’t do anything at all to help lower the price of gas now.

We’re continually told that it will take seven to ten years for the oil found there to be pumped out, processed and pumped into our cars as gasoline.

Not shocking. It’s true. Most things do take some length of time to fully accomplish.

Say you order an appliance. It’s days before delivery. Have an idea for a book? It takes time to write, edit, and publish it. You’ll have to wait to get your first copy.

You know, the price of food is up, too, in part because of America’s stupid ethanol policy, which we’ve talked about before. Apply the logic of anti-​drilling advocates and we won’t plant crops anymore because, after all, no food pops into existence ex nihilo, instantaneously. It takes months before harvest. Even longer for the food to trundle off to market.

So, why plant? Why drill? Why buy that book, knowing that you can’t read it until you get home?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

Wind Turbine Blues

I’m all for alternative sources of energy … providing that they actually produce enough to cover their costs.

Sad to say, it’s beginning to look like wind power is for the birds, if not the bats.

One big fear some people had about wind turbines was that they might kill too many birds. Think giant food processors in the sky.

But it turns out that the bigger danger is to bats. Dead bats are found all around wind turbines. Why?

Wind pressure. The poor little creatures can’t stand the quick change in air pressure around those spinning blades.

Meanwhile, the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, the government agency overseeing the state’s rebate programs for alternative energy, has put a halt to subsidizing small wind turbines. No more bucks for housetop windmills, folks.

The agency sponsored a study that has calculated that the average energy output for the turbines reviewed was no more than 27 percent of what installers had projected. It could be worse, and sometimes is. In Britain, a study found that some poorly placed turbines sucked up more energy converting current from DC to household AC than produced, making them economic and energy sink holes.

We should remember, when activists start talking about revolutionizing things, that subsidies are for the birds, and technology based on hope alone, bats.

It’s from successful business operations that future revolutions come, not from mere wishful thinking. Or any amount of government subsidy.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.