Categories
Economics

[1776] Of capitalism is here to stay

This must be some kind end of an era.

Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns; names which are familiar in the realm of economics are no more. New prints of textbooks are required because the old ones are already outdated.

I spent almost continuously for four years living in the Michigan Union and every year, I would pass through its proud hallway. In front of doors along the hallway so full of memories, premium names would appear. Each year without fail, these institutions would visit Michigan for recruitment purpose.

It was here how I learned of these names. And what I did not know, I later learned more comprehensively in classes and later, through wider readings, sometimes in the libraries and usually on the internet.

During senior year, the highfliers were talking of joining these names, of joining the Lehman Brothers. I could only look at them enviously.

This is definitely not the first time names such as the Lehman Brothers have been swept away by time and carved only in history now. Drexel Burnham Lambert is another prestigious name which suffered the same fate approximately 20 years ago. Michael Lewis in Liar’s Poker skillfully described that era when he was with the Salomon Brothers.

In this time of collapse, doomsayers are sprouting like mushrooms after the rain. The end of capitalism, they say. Look around, the sky is falling.

On the contrary, no. The sun will rise again tomorrow and so shall we.

There is pain involved but all this is part of capitalism. It is to some extent a free market. Though the Austrian-inclined would deride what mainstream economists would call business cycle, the periods of exuberance and pain are just part of the game. We reap what we sow.

Similar crisis happened in the past in the 1980s in form of savings and loan crisis. In the aftermath of the crisis, market reforms were carried out, resulting in stronger market and renewed confidence in capitalism. The same will follow the subprime mortgage crisis after the dust settled.

Business failure is typical in capitalism. There is risk in business, as in life, and failure humbles us all. It reminds us that we cannot win forever and ever. Any state effort to artificially eliminate risk will only make us arrogant. Mark my words, the bailouts of Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be the seeds of future disaster.

There is really no need to overly worry and panic each time businesses fail in a free market because each time it happens is one more time for all of us to learn something new, or to relearn something which we forgot.

It is still sad to watch everything that is familiar going down in flames. Watching people, especially honest hardworking smart people, losing their jobs is always heartbreaking for me but losses and failures are bitter medicine. It is sad but let it fails. The invisible hand is at work and it knows better. After all this, we will emerge stronger.

So, here is to capitalism for there is none else better. We have reached the end of history.

Categories
Economics

[1771] Of they lack the moral authority to criticize the fiscal deficit

In the days after the tabling of the 2009 Budget in Parliament, the zeitgeist of the week for the economically and politically inclined was the fiscal deficit. Various quarters have leveled various criticisms against the deficit and many of these are on target while others are merely hyperboles. Amid the flying mud balls, the sincerity of two camps critical of the fiscal deficit is questionable.

With 2009 being the 12th consecutive year of a deficit budget, it is easy to understand why so many people are worried about how the government is spending its resources. A source at Bank Negara has stated that the ongoing deficit is the single biggest factor preventing the rating of Malaysian bonds from improving.

For those struggling for a freer market, the involvement of the government in the workings of the market is always of concern. The deficit in so many ways indicates the prevalent presence of the state in the market.

Lest there is a misunderstanding, I have to make it absolutely clear that I am not defending the deficit in any way. I am merely pointing out that certain groups have no moral authority to criticize the fiscal deficit.

The first camp comes from the proponents of subsidies for various items, especially fuel. They should be the last ones on this planet to complain about the fiscal deficit because the policy which they are advocating contributes massively to the deficit.

A huge chunk of the operating expenditure of the government is attributable to subsidies. As stated in a document prepared by the Treasury for the purpose of the 2009 Budget, the government is allocating RM33.8 billion to fund all subsidy programs. It is a challenge for a two-day worth of research over the weekend to find out how much of the RM33.8 billion is expected to be dedicated to fuel subsidies but according to a report by Forbes, the expected answer is RM21.0 billion.

With RM154.2 billion meant for the running of the federal government, 22 per cent of the operating expenditure is expected to fund all subsidy programs. Approximately 14 per cent of the operating expenditure is expected to be dedicated to fuel subsidies alone.

If the figures 22 per cent and 14 per cent fail to impress subsidy proponents the monstrosity of their policy, they must compare the size of the subsidy to the size of the much criticized fiscal deficit.

The revenue of the government is projected to be RM176.3 billion while its expenditure is expected to reach RM205.9 billion. Therefore, the people of Malaysia can expect to see our government borrowing RM29.6 billion in 2009 to fund the fiscal deficit. In other words, that is 3.6 per cent worth of the country’s expected 2009 gross domestic product.

Here is the killer: a total elimination of the subsidy would easily turn the deficit into a small surplus. A total elimination of subsidy, however, might sound too harsh and so, let us just concentrate on the fuel subsidy.

A near total elimination of fuel subsidy on the other hand may not sound too shocking since the Minister of Trade and Domestic Consumer Affairs has forwarded the idea earlier by virtue of his suggestion to float local retail fuel prices to free-market level earlier this year.

An elimination of the fuel subsidy could at most cut RM21 billion off the operating expenditure, assuming the figure from Forbes is right. This would directly reduce the fiscal deficit significantly, bring it down to approximately 1 per cent instead.

Here is another point that should shake the world of subsidy proponents: a larger fuel subsidy program or simply subsidies in general is very likely to worsen the deficit.

Therefore, how exactly can those who support increasing the size of subsidies back the criticism against the fiscal deficit, which in a large part is caused by the current size of subsidy? What exactly gives the proponents of subsidies the moral authority to criticize the fiscal deficit? Where is the sincerity in their criticism of the deficit?

Or, are they at all aware of the contradiction which stares at them?

Now, proponents of subsidies may insist that leakage and corruption is a major problem which contributes to the deficit. Nobody can really argue against that but removal of subsidies and reduction of leakage as well as corruption are not two mutually exclusive policies. Both policies can be run concurrently and indeed, the savings from the two policies will lower the fiscal deficit.

Hence, calls for a reduction of leakage and corruption do not adversely affect the arguments against subsidies. In fact, the removal of subsidies goes a long way in eliminating opportunities available for leakage and corruption to take place, do you not think so?

Finally, the members of the second group are the advocates of big government. They are better known as statists. While the first group is really a subset of statists, the former is not actually driven by an overarching philosophy unlike statists. The statists demand for larger government intervention in the market far beyond the issue of subsidies.

To the statists, I have only a couple of words: deficit smeficit, go fly a kite instead.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

A version of this article was published in The Malaysian Insider.

Categories
Economics Humor Science & technology

[1769] Of adherents of efficient market hypothesis in particle physics

Apparently, efficient market hypothesis has found its way into particle physics.

But concerns have been voiced – in particular by the German chemist Professor Otto Rossler – that black holes created by the LHC will grow uncontrollably and “eat the planet from the inside”.

These claims have been dismissed by leading scientists, including Prof Stephen Hawking of Cambridge University who said that the LHC is “feeble compared with what goes on in the universe. If a disaster was going to happen, it would have happened already.” [Large Hadron Collider is activated. Telegraph. September 10 2008]

Economics was inspired by physics but economics definitely has gone a long way since the days of Jevons and Walras. Proof: it has become an inspiration to physics.

The circle is now complete.

Categories
Economics

[1765] Of why would the Bank Negara defend the ringgit?

There is a suspicion that the Bank Negara bought a lot of ringgit today by selling the US dollar in order to defend the ringgit from further depreciation vis-a-vis the dollar.

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 5 (Reuters) – The Malaysian central bank was suspected of selling dollars on Friday, joining counterparts in South Korea, Indonesia and the Philippines in defending their weakening currencies. [Malaysia c.bank sells dlrs to defend ringgit-traders. Reuters via Forbes. September 5 2008]

Why would the Bank Negara want to defend the ringgit?

Is it due to nationalism?  Is it an order from Putrajaya? Is it to mitigate the more expensive import priced in dollar? Is it to fight more expensive crude oil due to strengthening dollar vis-a-vis the ringgit? Is it due to too much foreign-denominated debt, just like in what happened in 1997 in Thailand?

The simultaneous sales by four different central banks also raise question.

Is there a collusion by the four banks to stop the US dollar march upward? If the motive is so, would such collusion garner enough influence to affect the US dollar?

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[1764] Of the danger of the September 16 promise

With (x,y), x is the payoff to the incumbent while y is the payoff to the challenger. Numbers are cardinal.

The challenger plays the first round. The incumbent plays the last round.

By Hafiz Noor Shams. Public domain

By martial law, I mean to indicate incumbent’s refusal to let go of power, eventually involving some kind of conflict greater than mere tongue war and successfully retaining power through the conflict.

By new government, there is a peaceful transition of power.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

p/s — this model does not consider any discount from the conflict on the society. Such accommodation would likely change the payoff of the second round, making the model more complex.

This model stands on only one assumption: holding power is better than not holding power.