Categories
Economics Environment Liberty

[322] Of Angi and smokers and irrational exuberance

After six months and two comments later, I’ve realized that I’ve made a mistake in this entry. It is supposed to be “Smoking brings no social benefit to anybody” (excluding the tobacco industry of course) instead of “Smokers bring no social benefit to anybody“.

I can’t really argue with Angi because her point is valid. So, a correction perhaps would suffice.

On the technical point, there were two comments, one by Jaboobie which is gone, no thanks to Haloscan.

On the side note, does anybody remember this Bull?

//www.theatlantic.com/. Fair Use.

1999 was almost 5 years ago but it seems like it was just yesterday. How time flies. Sigh…

Categories
Economics Environment

[321] Of oil price and ANWR

I’ve just realized one thing.

With the rising oil price, the pressure to drill the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) may be too great to resist. The last time the proposal to drill ANWR came up, the green won. If thing doesn’t change for the better, that victory might be short-lived.

At the same time, this could be what the green needs; something to justify the push toward renewable energy.

Drilling the ANWR might be the short run answer. It has been reported that the oil reserve under the ANWR could only supply the US merely six months worth of fuel.

Renewable energy is the long term solution. Considering solar power, it takes several more billion years for the Sun to die.

Being myopic, the oil industry lobbists would probally reignite the war for ANWR.

Let’s pray for the November election to come first (and of course, hope it’s Kerry) before the grey gets their act together and pushes for the proposal all over again.

Categories
Economics

[320] Of Micro$oft

Yesterday – actually it was the day before yesterday – the European Commission on behalf of the European Union slammed a $603 million penalty on Microsoft for unfair competition. Not so long ago, the same ruling was given out to Microsoft in the United States though with a heavier penalty – the company was supposed to be split into two different entities. Somehow, Microsoft appealed against the ruling and managed to keep itself in one piece. If my memory does not fail me, the last company that actually was split into several different entities was Standard Oil – now known as Exxon Mobil.

Apart from the half a billion Euro fine, Microsoft also has been ordered by the European Union to disclose relevant information to the public in order to promote a fair competition within a few months.

Currently, Microsoft has announced to appeal against the European ruling.

But is Microsoft really dangerous? Is it okay for the EU to punish Microsoft for being too successful? [Insert some funky music here]

It is no doubt that a monopoly would bring inefficiency into the market. In economic terms, Microsoft is charging the users a price higher than the firm’s marginal cost, gaining too much profit while producing too little. At the same time, deadweight loss to the society is unavoidable. Maybe,

Still, I believe in free market. My belief in laissez faire leads me to believe that it is wrong to punish Microsoft from being too successful.

The clash of the two concepts make me feel uncomfortable. Being both a green and a free-marketeer wannabe is hard.

However, in Microsoft case, one event made it easier for me to decide.
Weeks earlier, it was reported that Microsoft encouraged SCO to launch assault on Linux. SCO has of course denied this allegation but still, the tree doesn’t sway if the wind doesn’t blow.

Ladies and gentlemen, Micro$oft is as evil as Standard Oil and Exxon Mobil. And I support, cautiously, EU’s decision.

Categories
Economics Environment

[319] Of NYT on recycling

New York Times editorial on reycling in New York City:

…While the city may have had the best of intentions in suspending parts of the recycling program, the experiment did not produce the savings predicted. All those items that could have been recycled were trucked to increasingly expensive landfills, part of the city’s 12,000 tons of daily residential and institutional trash. And what wasn’t factored into the cost-benefit analysis was the psychological effect on New Yorkers, who had just started internalizing the recycling routine. In 1989, fewer than 1 percent of city residents sorted their newspapers, cans and cartons. By 2002, about 20 percent had the habit. Recycling takes effort, but residents were coming around to seeing it like daily exercise: not always enjoyable, but good for them…

I agree with the points presented but I have one minor disagreement. Recycling is not just good from them but rather, it is good for us all, New Yorkers and non-New Yorkers alike.

Categories
Economics

[313] Of the Hunt brothers

I’m tired of politics. Let’s shift some gears.

In my financial class today, again, the professor told an interesting story. This time, it was about the Hunt brothers, oil tycoons from Texas.

Back in the 70s, according to Freedom Investment, the Hunt was possibly the richest family in America. The professor in his usual confident tone said that two of the Hunt brothers decided to corner the silver market. Further search on the net revealed that they were trying to protect their asset from the rising inflation. At the time, inflation in the US was high; sometimes it was almost as high as 10%.

The Hunt tried to corner the market by buying a lot of future options, call options to be precise. For those who lack general financial knowledge, the future market is roughly a market where assets could be bought and sold at an agreed price at some future date.

Together with some help from their Arab friends, they created a silver pool and continuously gathered silver through future contracts. As time progressed, the silver pool got bigger and its supply in the public market steadily decreased. Then naturally, rumor about somebody was cornering the silver market came up but nobody did anything.

From about USD 2 per ounce, the poor’s gold price soared to more than USD 50 per ounce. Record price was USD 54. As the price was setting record, day by day, people thought that these, as the professor put it, Texas folks, would in the end sell off the silver and make a huge profit. However, that was not the case. People didn’t know that the reason the Hunt brothers’ created the pool to protect their wealth, not making profit. And thus, the silver market was continued to be pressed by, as what some would call, the rouge traders.

Industries related to silver started to feel the pain and that was enough to convince the Federal Reserve to jump in and act. The Fed with the New York Metals Market halt silver future trading and declared that no silver could be bought nor traded anymore for the time being. Just as a note, this might be an example on how free market might fail.

Immediately after the announcement, silver price crumbled from its peak price to about half in one day. Later, the price fell to about USD10. The bubble burst.

Unfortunately for the Hunt brothers, because they had accumulated almost all of the deliverable silver, they fell from grace and in the end, in the early 1980s, filed from bankruptcy. Jokingly, one of the brothers – roughly, quoting the professor – said “who cares about three billions anyway?”

Of course, that was said in a sarcastic manner.