Categories
Economics

[1812] Of 2008 fiscal stimulus 2.0 may prevent a lemons market

Yet another fiscal stimulus is proposed and this time, Bernanke backs it.

Oct. 20 (Bloomberg) — Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke endorsed additional fiscal stimulus, saying the credit crunch is “hitting home” as Americans find it harder to get loans, threatening a prolonged economic slump.

Lawmakers “should consider including measures to help improve access to credit by consumers, homebuyers, businesses and other borrowers,” Bernanke said in testimony to the House Budget Committee. “Such actions might be particularly effective at promoting economic growth and job creation,” he said, calling consideration of a stimulus “appropriate.” [Bernanke Backs More Stimulus, Citing ‘Weak’ Outlook. Scott Lanman. Bloomberg. October 21 2008]

Earlier in the year, a fiscal stimulus in form of a one-time tax break was executed. The rationale behind the first stimulus was unconvincing and true enough, it did not work as the proposers had hoped for.[1]

There is however hope for the second stimulus to succeed, unlike the first which fell victim to the game of expectation from the outset.

Access to credit in the real economy is the crux of the current crisis. Acts to improve access will go a long way in making the stimulus matters.

While I opposed the first stimulus, I may be supportive of the second effort, especially if the plan seeks to untighten credits. It is becoming clear to me that the banks’ reluctance to lend money may be a form of market failure, similar to the idea of lemons in the used cars market where there is a lack of trust as well as a form of negative externality. Banks simply do not know who to trust and hence, hoard money at the expense of the economy.

In the used car market, market failure occurs when buyers simply do not know which used cars are bad (lemons) and which are good. Prices for good used cars are higher than lemons for the obvious reason. With information asymmetry faced by buyers and sellers enjoying complete information, sellers have the incentive to sell the lemons at the prices of good cars, thus gaining handsome profits. Buyers, realizing this, simply refuse to participate in the market to avoid from being cheated and losses. Hence, market failure as transactions do not occur.[1a]

This however is not to say that the whole crisis is caused by the market. The US government has blood on its hand. Government interference in the market has caused a cascading effect throughout the US economy, leading to a government-induced market failure.

As a green libertarian conscious of the fact that market can fail and government does have a role in combating market failure, I think I can support the second, more properly tailored fiscal stimulus.

I do wonder however how could a fiscal policy improves credit access? Could the government lends directly to the market? Would the government become a guarantor to various borrowers?

But hey, since the US government already owns some banks, why not just order those banks to lower down their rates… (sarcasm) What better way to untighten credit in the market than that?[3]

On a separate note, Mark Sunshine at the Economix writes that a tax-rebate might work because the US economy might have entered into a liquidity trap in which the economy becomes unresponsive to monetary policies.[2] While I do think fiscal stimulus might work, the effectiveness of one-time tax rebate is suspect for the same reason the first stimulus failed. A fiscal stimulus based on government spending might work better than a one-time tax cut.

Whoa. What am I talking about? Heresy!

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

[1] — Momentum for fresh measures built after an earlier stimulus package failed to prevent a jump in the unemployment rate to a six-year high and the longest slump in retail sales since at least 1992. [U.S. Moves Toward Stimulus as Bernanke, Bush Shift. Ryan J. Donmoyer. Scott Lanman. Bloomberg. October 21 2008]

[1a] — See The Market for Lemons on Wikipedia for more information on the subject.

[2] — Momentum for fresh measures built after an earlier stimulus package failed to prevent a jump in the unemployment rate to a six-year high and the longest slump in retail sales since at least 1992. [Will Paulson’s Two Plans Unplug the ‘Liquidity Trap’?. Mark Sunshine. Economix. October 4 2008]

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

[3]p/s — Apparently, there is a rumor about that flying around…

Categories
Economics

[1810] Of more government intervention

What?

KUALA LUMPUR: The government will invest an additional RM5 billion into Valuecap Sdn Bhd to double the latter’s funds to RM10 billion, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak said today.

[…]

Established in 2002, Valuecap is a fund management company created to invest specifically in the Malaysia equities market. Jointly owned by Khazanah Nasional Bhd, Permodalan Nasional Bhd and Kumpulan Wang Persaraan Diperbadankan (or better known as KWAP), Valuecap’s key mandate is to undertake investments in equities listed on Bursa Malaysia on a portfolio basis. [Govt to pump extra RM5b into Valuecap. Surin Murugiah. The Edge Daily. October 20 2008]

Why?

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 20 (Bernama) — The government will provide RM5 billion in additional funds to double the size of Valuecap Sdn Bhd to RM10 billion and to invest in undervalued stocks and protect investments in government-owned companies, Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said Monday. [Government Provides RM5 Billion In Additional Funds To Invest In Undervalued Stocks. Bernama. October 20 2008]

I am sure even honest Keynesians would raise their eyebrows upon reading this.

Categories
Economics

[1809] Of Anna Schwartz talks

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has called the 888-page “Monetary History” “the leading and most persuasive explanation of the worst economic disaster in American history.” Ms. Schwartz thinks that our central bankers and our Treasury Department are getting it wrong again.

To understand why, one first has to understand the nature of the current “credit market disturbance,” as Ms. Schwartz delicately calls it. We now hear almost every day that banks will not lend to each other, or will do so only at punitive interest rates. Credit spreads — the difference between what it costs the government to borrow and what private-sector borrowers must pay — are at historic highs.

This is not due to a lack of money available to lend, Ms. Schwartz says, but to a lack of faith in the ability of borrowers to repay their debts. “The Fed,” she argues, “has gone about as if the problem is a shortage of liquidity. That is not the basic problem. The basic problem for the markets is that [uncertainty] that the balance sheets of financial firms are credible.” [Bernanke Is Fighting the Last War. Brian M. Carney. The Wall Street Journal. October 18 2008]

Categories
Economics Environment

[1807] Of Beijing would do better with congestion pricing

Beijing is notorious for its dismal air quality. I have never been there myself but many news reports have convinced me that Beijing is not really a place I would want to live in. My experience in Kuala Lumpur during the one of those hazy periods was bad enough. I also hate Los Angeles because of its constant smoggy sky and I doubt I would love Beijing for the same reason. The authority there however is trying to do something about it and among it is a requirement for all cars to stay off the streets for a day out of a week.[1] This may work in the short term but in the long run, it could be ineffective.

The policy — in its six-month trial run — calls for car with registration ending with a particular digit to be barred from being driven on the road on a particular day. With this rule, the local authority expects to reduce traffic by 6.5%. The same authority also has an ambition to take half of the cars in Beijing off the road on a very bad day: that is equivalent to 3.4 million cars.[2]

It is not really rocket science to find a way to go around this restriction: buy or use another car with its registration number different from the existing one. Or buy or use other kind of vehicle. Or use public transportation which is probably the ideal path. In any case, one unintended consequence of this policy could be an increase in car ownership per capita while traffic remains to be high, or only see limited reduction, with all else being equal.

The scary part is that in the short run, this policy might work. Individuals probably need some time to acquire new car or vehicles. And it would probably take the most of the public some time to discover a way to beat the system. The bottom line is that adaptation requires time. Slowly however, the policy would be useless as more and more individuals move to capitalize over the weakness of the policy. How long would that be would be anybody’s guess, until the results from the test run are finalized.

Why is this scary?

The trial run will last only six months. The time length is probably insufficient for the authority to obtain the necessary empirical data to prove the ineffectiveness of the policy. The way the test run is being conducted has a temporal bias and may lead those conducting the experiment to a wrong conclusion.

But fret not Beijing for all is not lost in your quest for cleaner and clearer sky! There is a proven superior market-based alternative known as congestion pricing!

Congestion pricing policy suffers no such weakness as no vehicle, save those exempted, will escape the policy, assuming enforcement is carried out. This market-based policy also has the potential of eliminating negative externalities such as traffic congestion and pollution. Another is that the policy, unlike the currently tested in Beijing, fills the city’s coffers. That money could then be used to maintain or even improve the public transportation system!

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

[1] — Traffic restrictions have been re-introduced in China’s capital Beijing, in an attempt to bring back the clear skies seen during the Olympics.

Each car must spend one day a week off the road, in a scheme based on registration numbers. [Beijing reintroduces car rules. BBC. October 13 2008]

[2] — The new rules are expected to take some 800,000 cars off the road every day, according to the Beijing Municipal Committee of Communications.

“It’s expected to reduce Beijing’s average road traffic flow by 6.5%,” a committee official told the state news agency Xinhua.

During periods of exceptionally heavy pollution, the restrictions will be increased so that half of Beijing’s 3.4 million cars will be taken off the roads, state media reports. [Beijing reintroduces car rules. BBC. October 13 2008]

Categories
Economics

[1806] Of holy macaroni! Krugman wins the Prize in Economics!

Totally unexpected!

Oct. 13 (Bloomberg) — Princeton University professor and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman won the Nobel Prize in economics for his work on trade theory. [Princeton’s Paul Krugman Wins Nobel Economics Prize (Update3). Simon Kennedy. Benedikt Kammel Bloomberg. October 13 2008]

And what did the good professor say in his blog?

A funny thing happened to me this morning… [An interesting morning. The Conscience of a Liberal. October 13 2008]