Categories
Economics

[1513] Of winners need not compensate losers

Steven Landsburg:

All economists know that when American jobs are outsourced, Americans as a group are net winners. What we lose through lower wages is more than offset by what we gain through lower prices. In other words, the winners can more than afford to compensate the losers. Does that mean they ought to? Does it create a moral mandate for the taxpayer-subsidized retraining programs proposed by Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney?

[…]

One way to think about that is to ask what your moral instincts tell you in analogous situations. Suppose, after years of buying shampoo at your local pharmacy, you discover you can order the same shampoo for less money on the Web. Do you have an obligation to compensate your pharmacist? If you move to a cheaper apartment, should you compensate your landlord? When you eat at McDonald’s, should you compensate the owners of the diner next door? Public policy should not be designed to advance moral instincts that we all reject every day of our lives.

[…]

Bullying and protectionism have a lot in common. They both use force (either directly or through the power of the law) to enrich someone else at your involuntary expense. If you’re forced to pay $20 an hour to an American for goods you could have bought from a Mexican for $5 an hour, you’re being extorted. When a free trade agreement allows you to buy from the Mexican after all, rejoice in your liberation — even if Mr. McCain, Mr. Romney and the rest of the presidential candidates don’t want you to. [What to Expect When You’re Free Trading. Steven Landsburg. NYT. January 16 2008]

Categories
Economics Politics & government

[1509] Of a rational world with perfect information makes fuel prices hike irrelevant

There is strong expectation that fuel prices will increase after the expected upcoming general election and the impetus for such expectation is clear. The Malaysian government’s no-hike guarantee lapsed as 2007 regressed into history while crude oil prices have increased significantly since the last hike took place.[1] Meanwhile, prices hike is a very unpopular move[2] and it can be disastrous for any incumbent facing an election. While the reasoning does make sense, it somehow reminds me of the Ricardian equivalence. Indeed, I am inclined to say that given strong expectation of a hike, it does not matter when the hike will take place. In other words, assuming rational individuals with perfect information, fuel prices hike is irrelevant to the result of the expected Malaysian election.

First of all, while I mentioned Ricardian equivalence, the economic theory has only a hint of relevance to the issue at hand. I will not go into the theory in great detail but somewhere along its rationale, the concept suggests that it does not matter when the state raises funds through one-time taxation or debt.[3] The effect will be the same with only one exception: timing difference. This is because individuals accommodate their expectation and shape their behavior accordingly. In either case, between raising debt or rising tax, individuals changes their saving and spending levels to make their lives less painful especially given the eventuality of taxation in the scenario. This is where the concept influences my thought on how fuel prices hike affects Malaysian election.

Honestly, if people greatly suspect that fuel prices hike will follow the election in the tradition of fatalism, assuming the incumbent stays in power, does it matter when the hike will occur?

There is a speeding train running on an unfinished track leading to a horrifying large canyon with no chance of halting the train. You know that the train will be at the bottom of the canyon within the next few minutes. Assuming you actually care for self-preservation, does it matter when you should jump off the train as long as you do not end up at the bottom of the gorge with your face rearranged?

The nature of fatalism is that it is unavoidable and one might as well accept it. Through interaction with a lot of people, I have the perception that they embrace fatalism as far as the fuel prices hike is concerned. There is a clear resignation that nothing could be done about it among them. I have to admit though that I am one of those fatalists and actually support a hike. In fact, I advocate taxation along with floating prices arrangement but that is another issue altogether.

Alas, not all of us are privy to complete information regarding the hike. On top of that, not all of us are a fatalist, either by ignorance or special knowledge. In an imperfect world unfortunately, fuel prices hike will affect the election to a certain degree.

While the conclusion may look like mere mental masturbation and irrelevant to the real world, it does inform policymakers, or rather, the incumbents on how to manage the general public expectation to the incumbents’ benefit, given belief in fatalism and imperfect information. I will share some thought on the matter later.

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

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 5 (Bernama) — The government has reiterated several times that there would be no increase in the price of oil or gas products for the year 2007.

But the reprieve is expected not to last long as we enter the new year and as global fuel prices continued to surge.

Oil prices added nearly US$12 a barrel since the start of October and reached US$93.80 (about RM313) a barrel last Monday (Oct 30) and US$96.24 (about RM321) on Nov 1. Some reports have also mentioned that oil prices could break the US$100 mark if risk factors influencing the sharp rise are to continue. [Bracing For Another Price Hike For Fuel Products. Bernama. Extracted November 5 2007]

[2] — As expected, Malaysians reacted with shock, frustration and anger to having to pay 30 sen more for every litre of petrol and diesel.

Unexpected was the ferocity of sentiment on the ground a day after the biggest single petrol price hike. The common man, already feeling the pinch of the rising cost of living, spewed a litany of complaints and grouses. Consumer groups and trade unions warned the fuel price hike would set off a chain reaction across the board. [Price hike pain for RM4.4b gain. New Straits Times. March 1 2006]

[3] — See Wikipedia for more on Ricardian equivalence.

Categories
Economics Liberty

[1502] Of welcome to the Soviet Union

Remind me again, did the Communist defeat the combined Commonwealth forces during the Malayan Emergency?

PUTRAJAYA: Five kilograms — that is the maximum amount of cooking oil that each consumer can buy when a move to solve the shortage of the essential item is enforced next week.

Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Minister Datuk Shafie Apdal however did not specify when the move would be implemented to increase stocks of cooking oil, especially in areas like Kelantan, Pahang, Malacca, Kedah and some parts of the Klang Valley where the shelves are getting bare. [5kg buying limit on cooking oil. The Star. January 5 2008]

I ask you comrades, because our economic policies are showing the characteristic inefficiency[1] of a communist economy.

Let prices be free instead. I would rather have inequality in wealth rather than equality in poverty.

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

p/s — This is Malaysia under the Abdullah administration:

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams

It is time to take it back. If we do not, these people would have died in vain. They would have fought for nothing.

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

[1] — See remarks in the comment section. Shortage is not uncommon. Similar episodes are observable in the past, for instance, in the sugar market not too long ago. Such shortages constitute inefficiency. After some rethinking, the word inefficiency works better than the word characteristic. Indeed, Malaysia has run a centralized economy for the longest time but I do not remember when was the last time the government has imposed a rationing regime on goods (okay, apart from water…). Perhaps, I am suffering from recency effect bias but the point here, taking the hyperbole aside, there is a mismanagement of the economy that is associated with centralized planning.

Categories
Economics

[1500] Of Tata’s Jag?

Jan. 3 (Bloomberg) — Ford Motor Co. selected Tata Motors Ltd. as the preferred bidder for Jaguar and Land Rover, putting India’s largest truckmaker in a position to take over two iconic British luxury auto brands. [Tata in Talks to Buy Ford’s Jaguar, Land Rover Units. Bloomberg. January 3 2008]

Hmm…

Categories
Economics

[1484] Of it does not work like that, Fomca

This is a weird article, weird in a way that the economic rationale does not make sense at first glance:

THE Government will not increase the number of permits to import wheat flour, as there is enough supply of the commodity in the country, reported Mingguan Malaysia.

Deputy Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs minister Datuk S.Veerasingam said the price was still fixed at RM1.35, but admitted that the price of wheat flour in the international market had shot up by 70%.

Veerasingam was commenting on a statement by the Federation of Malaysian Consumer Association (Fomca) president Datuk N. Marimuthu that the Government should increase the number of permits to curb price increases.

Veerasingam explained that it would not make a difference if the Government increased the number of permits, as the international market controlled the price of wheat flour. [No extra permits to import wheat flour. The Star. December 24 2007]

Let me summarize that. Fomca is suggesting the government to increase permits in order to reduce price. While that may be the case in typical economic model, given situation in the market, it simply does not work like that.

Even if countless permits are issued to the point that permits are made effectively useless policy-wise, price will not move unless the fixed price regime is done away with. Permits restrict the availability of goods in the market, if the number of permits is below that of equilibrium. The article does not make clear if international prices are higher than local counterparts but judging from the sentiment of the article and current trends, it is likely that that is the case.

What a permit quantity increase will do instead in the current Malaysian context is to widen the availability of wheat flour in the market assuming there is a shortage of wheat flour and by extension, permits, which again, seems the case here.

With higher international prices, there is a upward pressure on local prices. If the local price control mechanism is done away with, price will actually go up to equalize with international prices. Because of that and the fact that Malaysia is a small and relatively open market economy, I do not have a reason to believe the price could actually go down, unless it rains flour. There is no reason to believe that Malaysian prices will significantly affect international prices downward either, if Malaysian prices are forced to be artificially lower than international prices.

One of the few things that will go down is the frequency of wheat flour smuggling from the local to international market. Smaller prices differential between the local and the international markets erodes incentive for smuggling.

Despite that, if Malaysia was an autarky with no opportunity for smuggling activities at all, increase in permits would reduce equilibrium prices, in a market with flexible price regime. So, I think, Fomca might actually be thinking within this framework when the representative made the statement as reported in the article above. But the existence of fixed price regime and higher international price compared to local prices render Fomca’s rationale false.

Nevertheless, I am partial to Fomca calls to increase the permits. Their rationale maybe wrong but hey, when the goal is the same, I am bound not to care too much for the difference in methods in achieving that goal. Increase in permit quantity provides a more liberal atmosphere than the status quo. Of course, nothing beats a total liberalization where free market reigns supreme, providing allocative efficiency to the society.

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

p/s — After some more thought, I find the whole thing confusing. If international prices are higher than local prices, there will be an outflow of good from the local to international market. So, what is the point of import permits?