I have written in the past, mostly at Dissecting The Bull, about the problem with pretending markets are efficient pricers of goods when prices are set by auctions. The recent financial meltdown has given many real world examples of this, but they are difficult to explain to people who are not familiar with stock and bond pricing, much less derivative pricing. So I have made up an imaginary example that encapsulates, in a dramatic way, a particular type of auction malfunction (if by malfunction we mean pricing that veers from free market ideals). I'll walk you through the example, then relate that understanding to selected current economic and financial events.
You hear about an auction and it sounds like you might want some of items in it, if the prices are right. The auctioneers will take only cash, so you put together what you have, say $55. You get stuck in traffic, so you arrive late. Outside people are already boasting of what great bargains they won. You hurry in.
The auctioneer, "the next item is a bundle of $1 bills, 100 of them." You think it is a strange item to auction: it is clearly worth $100 [assume these are not bills of value to collectors, or counterfeits, just ordinary $1 bills]. No one makes an offer at first, because everyone says assumes that it will be bid up to just short of $100, so bidding is a waste of time. But the tension builds and you decide why not, and open at $10. At that point the bidding goes quickly up to $29, then stalls. You offer $30. No one else bids against you. You win the $100. You pay $30 for the $100 and have $70 at the end. Meanwhile the auction has ended.
How could that happen (aside from the fact no one would auction off actual money like that)? Everyone else had run out of money. The next richest bidder in the room only had $29. It is your lucky day.
Translating this imaginary excursion closer to reality, now suppose that the item you bid $30 on and won was a mortgage bond worth $100. It really is worth $100, because the mortgage backing the bond is sound and will pay $100 over time. You win the auction not because the bond is worth $30, but because there is not enough cash to efficiently price the auction. Free market ideals have broken down.
Lately, almost no one has wanted to participate in auctions of at least two types of securities, mortgage-related bonds derivative securities and auction-rate securities.
There are two basic reasons there has been little bidding for weeks now: fear and lack of cash to bid with. The kind of institutions that can play this sort of game were all suddenly short of cash, and wanting to auction off what they could for cash, rather than using their precious cash to buy more securities. But no one else knows how to price the securities. For instance, it is difficult to find out which particular houses correspond to which particular mortgage bonds; linking the houses to derivatives is even more complex. So it is not exactly like buying a bag of $1 bills, if you just start buying a bunch of bags without looking in them. It is like buying an unopened bag of $1 bills and moths. It might have $100 of usable bills in it, or it might be all moths, or anywhere in between.
This is a problem for the government bail-out program; is the government going to look in each bag before it uses taxpayer money to buy it, or is it going to guess about the value of huge groups of bags using sampling techniques.
In free market theory prices are supposed to emerge in an efficient manner and result in efficient allocations of resources. Putting aside that there may be (in fact, are) problems with free market economics even when pricing of commodities is efficient, in the real world the conditions necessary for efficient pricing often don't exist.
For an auction to price items efficiently, there need to be a reasonable number of bidders and a reasonable number of items to bid on. If anyone has the power to set prices, prices will be set by that person, not by the market.
Even when there are reasonable numbers of buyers and sellers, because of human nature, prices can get out of whack, as in both bubbles and Depressions. The housing market is an auction market. Two years ago there were relatively few houses compared to bidders, resulting in unrealistic, high pricing. Now the same houses are in abundance compared to bidders, so in many cases sales are either not made (because in effect the people auctioning off their houses have set a minimum bid that no one will meet) or made at well below the real value of the house. The actual cost of construction being a good surrogate for real value for new homes, and that cost adjusted for inflation and physical deterioration being a good surrogate for used homes.
The Federal Reserve has been tasked with making sure their are neither too many nor too few dollars in circulation. When there are too many dollars, they are used freely to create inflation and asset bubbles. When there are too few dollars, people are forced to sell assets at less than their real values. Free market theories pretend that the only real value is the selling price, and it a very real sense that is true. But when selling prices depend on the whim of the Federal Reserve, you might want to ask yourself: what really is true, and what is bull?
Showing posts with label carbon credits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label carbon credits. Show all posts
Monday, October 13, 2008
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Double Bubble, Toil and Trouble
Two economic bubbles burst in less than a decade. Is that just a run of bad luck, or is it a financial engineering feat? And how is it related to politics?
Consider that the Internet stock bubble that peaked in 2000 cannot be directly blamed on the Republican Party, since Democrat Bill Clinton was President and his Vice President Al Gore was a early proponent of the Internet. Congress, however, was controlled by the Republicans. The Federal Reserve probably deserves most of the blame for that bubble.
The Housing mortgage bubble that burst in 2007, with aftershocks still shaking up 2008, cannot be blamed on the Democrats. Even though Democrats controlled Congress by the time the bubble burst, we had a Republican President, George W. Bush, during the build-up to the bubble. Again, the Federal Reserve deserves most of the blame for the bubble (if you don't count the banks, the mortgage brokers, and the fools who bought at the top of the housing market).
So should we blame the Federal Reserve? Is the two-party system just a circus to keep most citizens distracted while we are really governed by an all-powerful, appointed, cabal of the highest reaches of banking and government? The two-party system is a circus, but it is not just a circus. The Federal Reserve is powerful, but today the corporate new media is saying the bubbles were because the Federal Reserve had too little power, not too much. There is a bit of truth in that, but they did have the power to raise interest rates. Raising interest rates earlier during each of the bubbles would probably would have prevented many of the excesses that damaged the entire economy when the bubbles popped. Yet those who hate the Federal Reserve would have hated that even more. In the housing bubble, the left would have pointed to the injustice of raising interest rates to the point where ordinary people were unable to buy homes, and the right would have screamed because it would have slowed down a none-too robust economy.
Noam Chomsky has talked about the way our "free market" economy tends to privatize profits and socialize losses. That is, the workers have to clean up after the rich. We are seeing that now with the banking bailouts. Executives walk away with their winnings, they don't have to give anything back to the stockholders or customers or employees or other losers. No one is paying back the fees generated by mortgages that should never have been made. The financial press, at least that part aimed (propaganda should always be carefully aimed, otherwise there might be casualties from friendly fire) at the unsophisticated, have failed to talk about bondholders at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. When the U.S. Government backs these institutions, it is saving the bondholders' investments. The bondholders took a risk in lending money to Fannie Mae to lend (through middlemen) to home buyers, but instead of being forced to take their losses, they will get paid all the interest and principle promised. Stockholders are losing almost everything; bondholders are fully protected. Old money tends to be in bonds; new money tends to be in stocks. Even among the very wealthy there is a system of caste and privilege.
Most Americans are just going to have to work harder and make do with less. Of course finding a job if you are an unemployed carpenter or real estate broker is not easy to do right now: you can't work harder when you are not working at all. American workers find themselves in the modern equivalent of lying prostate in the cotton field, genuinely unable to move a muscle because of poor food, heat, and exhaustion, while the overseer (never the master, who is drinking fine whiskey while trying to guess what price cotton will fetch in New Orleans this year) lays on the whip, demanding that they get up and produce more, more, more. You can't work harder or smarter if no work is to be found because the nation's capital was allocated to financial speculation.
The federal government is going to have to raise taxes or spend a lot less money on services, or it will bankrupt the entire nation without having to wait for the long term. Fortunately the Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich (which many Democrats in Congress originally voted for) are apt to expire in 2010, regardless of who is elected President, as long as the Democrats control Congress.
Financial bubbles have many components, but the ones that are large enough to matter are always based on credit bubbles. Credit is needed to provide the money used to bid up the price of whatever assets are in the bubble. The Internet Bubble was a typical bubble; many people called it a bubble long before it burst. Only idiots owned the stocks when they started to crash. Every Internet stock was hyped as the next Microsoft, while stocks of companies that were making real goods and profits were neglected. The credit involved was the ordinary kind, made possible by the Fed keeping interest rates too low.
The Housing bubble was weirder. With an Internet company at least the fiction was there that it might become more valuable over time, when it learned to convert page views to real money. But a house is a house. A neighborhood might become more popular, driving up prices locally, but the whole nation is not a neighborhood. House prices rise gradually over time mostly because of inflation. The bubble got its start because housing was not a popular investment during the 1990's stock market boom. When the Internet bubble broke, housing was relatively cheap and interest rates on mortgages were exceptionally low. Buyers moved in, sending up prices and getting the ball rolling. Then the bubble was driven by short-sighted banks and mortgage companies that were able to give credit at no risk because it was other people's money, and collect big fees for that service. As soon as the Federal Reserve raised interest rates towards normal levels, the bubble started to fall apart.
I think a lot of people saw it coming and decided to grab while the grabbing was good.
The real estate industry has always been a major financial backer of both Democratic Party and Republican Party politicians, from local city councils up through Congress and the Presidency. Don't expect anyone to give the real estate speculators a spanking.
As always, the American worker and small businesses, and a few well-run, non-glamorous, large businesses, will pull everyone's ass out of this mess and get no credit for it. But until ordinary Americans wake up and think things through, organize and act on a sound analysis, they are going to keep getting lashed by the wise guys on Wall Street. Neither the Democratic Party, nor the Republican Party, as currently configured, are capable of taking on Wall Street or the real estate speculation lobby.
With interest rates nice and low now, and no shortage of stupid people in the world, the next bubble is brewing somewhere. Only time will show where.
Consider that the Internet stock bubble that peaked in 2000 cannot be directly blamed on the Republican Party, since Democrat Bill Clinton was President and his Vice President Al Gore was a early proponent of the Internet. Congress, however, was controlled by the Republicans. The Federal Reserve probably deserves most of the blame for that bubble.
The Housing mortgage bubble that burst in 2007, with aftershocks still shaking up 2008, cannot be blamed on the Democrats. Even though Democrats controlled Congress by the time the bubble burst, we had a Republican President, George W. Bush, during the build-up to the bubble. Again, the Federal Reserve deserves most of the blame for the bubble (if you don't count the banks, the mortgage brokers, and the fools who bought at the top of the housing market).
So should we blame the Federal Reserve? Is the two-party system just a circus to keep most citizens distracted while we are really governed by an all-powerful, appointed, cabal of the highest reaches of banking and government? The two-party system is a circus, but it is not just a circus. The Federal Reserve is powerful, but today the corporate new media is saying the bubbles were because the Federal Reserve had too little power, not too much. There is a bit of truth in that, but they did have the power to raise interest rates. Raising interest rates earlier during each of the bubbles would probably would have prevented many of the excesses that damaged the entire economy when the bubbles popped. Yet those who hate the Federal Reserve would have hated that even more. In the housing bubble, the left would have pointed to the injustice of raising interest rates to the point where ordinary people were unable to buy homes, and the right would have screamed because it would have slowed down a none-too robust economy.
Noam Chomsky has talked about the way our "free market" economy tends to privatize profits and socialize losses. That is, the workers have to clean up after the rich. We are seeing that now with the banking bailouts. Executives walk away with their winnings, they don't have to give anything back to the stockholders or customers or employees or other losers. No one is paying back the fees generated by mortgages that should never have been made. The financial press, at least that part aimed (propaganda should always be carefully aimed, otherwise there might be casualties from friendly fire) at the unsophisticated, have failed to talk about bondholders at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. When the U.S. Government backs these institutions, it is saving the bondholders' investments. The bondholders took a risk in lending money to Fannie Mae to lend (through middlemen) to home buyers, but instead of being forced to take their losses, they will get paid all the interest and principle promised. Stockholders are losing almost everything; bondholders are fully protected. Old money tends to be in bonds; new money tends to be in stocks. Even among the very wealthy there is a system of caste and privilege.
Most Americans are just going to have to work harder and make do with less. Of course finding a job if you are an unemployed carpenter or real estate broker is not easy to do right now: you can't work harder when you are not working at all. American workers find themselves in the modern equivalent of lying prostate in the cotton field, genuinely unable to move a muscle because of poor food, heat, and exhaustion, while the overseer (never the master, who is drinking fine whiskey while trying to guess what price cotton will fetch in New Orleans this year) lays on the whip, demanding that they get up and produce more, more, more. You can't work harder or smarter if no work is to be found because the nation's capital was allocated to financial speculation.
The federal government is going to have to raise taxes or spend a lot less money on services, or it will bankrupt the entire nation without having to wait for the long term. Fortunately the Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich (which many Democrats in Congress originally voted for) are apt to expire in 2010, regardless of who is elected President, as long as the Democrats control Congress.
Financial bubbles have many components, but the ones that are large enough to matter are always based on credit bubbles. Credit is needed to provide the money used to bid up the price of whatever assets are in the bubble. The Internet Bubble was a typical bubble; many people called it a bubble long before it burst. Only idiots owned the stocks when they started to crash. Every Internet stock was hyped as the next Microsoft, while stocks of companies that were making real goods and profits were neglected. The credit involved was the ordinary kind, made possible by the Fed keeping interest rates too low.
The Housing bubble was weirder. With an Internet company at least the fiction was there that it might become more valuable over time, when it learned to convert page views to real money. But a house is a house. A neighborhood might become more popular, driving up prices locally, but the whole nation is not a neighborhood. House prices rise gradually over time mostly because of inflation. The bubble got its start because housing was not a popular investment during the 1990's stock market boom. When the Internet bubble broke, housing was relatively cheap and interest rates on mortgages were exceptionally low. Buyers moved in, sending up prices and getting the ball rolling. Then the bubble was driven by short-sighted banks and mortgage companies that were able to give credit at no risk because it was other people's money, and collect big fees for that service. As soon as the Federal Reserve raised interest rates towards normal levels, the bubble started to fall apart.
I think a lot of people saw it coming and decided to grab while the grabbing was good.
The real estate industry has always been a major financial backer of both Democratic Party and Republican Party politicians, from local city councils up through Congress and the Presidency. Don't expect anyone to give the real estate speculators a spanking.
As always, the American worker and small businesses, and a few well-run, non-glamorous, large businesses, will pull everyone's ass out of this mess and get no credit for it. But until ordinary Americans wake up and think things through, organize and act on a sound analysis, they are going to keep getting lashed by the wise guys on Wall Street. Neither the Democratic Party, nor the Republican Party, as currently configured, are capable of taking on Wall Street or the real estate speculation lobby.
With interest rates nice and low now, and no shortage of stupid people in the world, the next bubble is brewing somewhere. Only time will show where.
Monday, June 25, 2007
One Carbon Credit Per Person
It is way past time to ration carbon. The only fair way to do it is to allow for one carbon credit per person. The credits should be worked out on a global basis. A villager in Uganda should get the same carbon credit as a business person in China or a soccer mom in Peoria.
I see no reason why United States citizens should get to burn more carbon than people of other nationalities. True, we are used to burning a lot of carbon. We burn it so we can live in suburbs and commute to work. We burn it for heat, then we burn it for air-conditioning. We are the main contributors to global warming so far. But why should that entitle us to more than our share in the future?
Some people, poor people by global standards, might not be able to use their full carbon credit right away. Should they be allowed to trade their unused credit for money? I am of a mixed mind about that. In the past benefits from such trading schemes have largely gone to aggregators. These are people (or corporations) who buy from the poor at a very low price, bundle credits together, and then resell them at a much higher price to those wealthy enough to bid for them. But limited, person to person trading would probably add to efficiency and community solidarity.
Most carbon credit schemes suggested so far have been based on industrial output. That may benefit corporations and privileged people, but it is unfair and it does not benefit ordinary people.
Interests that oppose a fair carbon credit system will attack the one person - one credit system as being impossible to administer. But the U.S. had a very successful rationing system during World War II, and rationing has also been done on a large scale in other countries. Doing it globally is simply a matter of will power.
I might add that since a growing human population is the underlying cause of all trends towards ecological catastrophe, once a carbon credit number is set world wide, the number should remain constant. If more people enter the world than die, the credits should not expand. There are two systems that could be used to distribute credits when the population fluctuates. One is to just take the whole number of people each year and divide that into the total carbon credit allocated. I don't like that system because it awards more carbon to people who breed quickly. I think the carbon credits should be inheritable. Children don't get them. Adults get one each. Couples get two, and their children have to make do on their parents. When the parents die the next generation gets to divvy up the credits. This will provide incentives against large families.
I see no reason why United States citizens should get to burn more carbon than people of other nationalities. True, we are used to burning a lot of carbon. We burn it so we can live in suburbs and commute to work. We burn it for heat, then we burn it for air-conditioning. We are the main contributors to global warming so far. But why should that entitle us to more than our share in the future?
Some people, poor people by global standards, might not be able to use their full carbon credit right away. Should they be allowed to trade their unused credit for money? I am of a mixed mind about that. In the past benefits from such trading schemes have largely gone to aggregators. These are people (or corporations) who buy from the poor at a very low price, bundle credits together, and then resell them at a much higher price to those wealthy enough to bid for them. But limited, person to person trading would probably add to efficiency and community solidarity.
Most carbon credit schemes suggested so far have been based on industrial output. That may benefit corporations and privileged people, but it is unfair and it does not benefit ordinary people.
Interests that oppose a fair carbon credit system will attack the one person - one credit system as being impossible to administer. But the U.S. had a very successful rationing system during World War II, and rationing has also been done on a large scale in other countries. Doing it globally is simply a matter of will power.
I might add that since a growing human population is the underlying cause of all trends towards ecological catastrophe, once a carbon credit number is set world wide, the number should remain constant. If more people enter the world than die, the credits should not expand. There are two systems that could be used to distribute credits when the population fluctuates. One is to just take the whole number of people each year and divide that into the total carbon credit allocated. I don't like that system because it awards more carbon to people who breed quickly. I think the carbon credits should be inheritable. Children don't get them. Adults get one each. Couples get two, and their children have to make do on their parents. When the parents die the next generation gets to divvy up the credits. This will provide incentives against large families.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
