The problem with economics

The piece below by Peter Boettke summarizes what I think about current economics. The Keynesian model or paradigm is wrong and always has been. Two primary reasons it was adopted were 1) the crisis of the 1930s was misunderstood but demanded “action” of some kind and 2) it gave the politicians a license to steal power and money from the citizens. If economics were a physical science where data could refute false hypotheses, it is doubtful that the paradigm would still exist today. Because it isn’t, reason number two became paramount. Most economists initially objected to  the theory, gradually agreeing with it over time. After all, it also provided lucrative rewards for them in terms of higher paying jobs in government and eventually a route to tenure after it dominated university economics departments.
The books referenced below in the fifth paragraph are excellent reads for anyone interested in the flaws and inconsistencies in the so-called General Theory. “The Critics of Keynesian Economics” book is especially insightful because it is a collection of great economists (authors include Jacob Viner, Frank Knight, Garet Garrett, Jacques Rueff, Benjamin Anderson, Frederick Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and others) contemporaneously passing judgment on the then “New Economics.” Most of the essays were written in the 1930s or early 1940s and accurately saw the inconsistencies in

The government guaranteed all their debt

• Oh yes — this is surely a sign that the credit crunch is behind us. Regulators closed seven more regional banks last Friday, bringing the tally for the year to 106. There have been more bank failures this year than in the past 15 years combined, and the only reason why the big boys never followed suit was because the government guaranteed all their debt and then allowed them to hide their losses by switching to mark-to-model accounting from mark-to-market. Believe us when we tell you that even the most renowned experts could not tell you what is really sitting on the balance sheets of these large U.S. banks — but there is limited downside risk because Uncle Sam has deemed them all to be ‘too big to fail’. Those who were investors in American United Bank, well, we are sorry to have to tell you that you were involved in an institution that was small enough to close down.
• We realize that this did not make it anywhere in the weekend press (outside of a microscopic piece in the IBD) but the ECRI leading economic indicator actually fell (by 0.2 of a point) for the second week in a row (and the smoothed annualized growth rate declined 1.6% —- now what is that all about?).

Foreign resource stocks might do especially well

Peter Schiff adamantly recommends getting out of the dollar. His presentation, if correct, will be devastating for this country and wipe out the wealth of the middle class. All of what he says is correct, although his timing may be off. Furthermore, there is the possibility that our government might change course, although I, like Schiff, feel that unlikely. His recommendation to own “real stuff” is correct. If the stock market goes up, I doubt whether it will keep pace with inflation. The best performing stock market in the world in recent years has been Zimbabwe, but it did not keep pace with their inflation.
So, what to do? If as some believe that the dollar will decline by 50% from here over the next 10 years, then having your funds outside the dollar (in other currencies) would presumably produce a 7% average return per year. Investing in foreign stocks would provide that 7% plus the returns (or losses) obtained in foreign stock markets. Precious metals, as money substitutes, should do well. So should natural resources and other hard assets like land. Foreign resource stocks might do especially well.
None of this is meant to be investment advice. If what Schiff (and I) fear comes true, some of the above might be reasonable investments/hedges. On the other hand, all of the above comments would be 180 degrees wrong if we were to end up in deflation instead of inflation.
Schiff was very emotional, practically begging people to get out of the dollar. I suspect the economy and markets over the next year or two will justify his emotion. Whether his scenario results or not, is the more difficult issue.

Makes meaningful economic recovery impossible

It is about Citibank and is outrageous. Apparently it is going on with other credit card issuers as well.
This is the sort of thing that, in my opinion, makes meaningful economic recovery impossible. 

Here’s what it says:
To continue to provide our customers with access to credit, we have had to adjust our pricing.
….
These changes include an increase in the variable APR for purchases to 29.99% and will take effect November 30, 2009.
(It then goes on to say that if you pay on time you can get 10% of your interest charges back, which lowers the effective rate by about 3%.)
I have multiple copies of this letter, all on the same theme – 30% interest rates, vastly higher than they were.
The obvious message in this letter is simple: Those who are responsible and can pay their bills will be subsidizing those who cannot – that is, you, the responsible cardholder, will pay the deadbeat’s bill!
Citibank has 92 million cards in circulation and is #4 in market share in terms of purchase volume, with 11.05% of the total.
Overall, consumers hold an average of 5.4 revolving (credit) cards.  Half of all undergraduates in college have 4 or more cards.
Average card debt per household, including households that have no cards at all, is $8,329.  For households with one or more cards, it is $10,679, both figures at the end of 2008.
Of the 73% of families with credit cards, 60.3% carried a balance.  This means that for those with balances, the average balance is nearly $18,000.
If the previous interest rate on those cards was around 20% and is now 29%, the average family with a balance (about 44% of all households) was paying $3,600 in interest charges previously, but now will be paying $5,220, and increase of $1,620 a year or $135.00 a month.
There are approximately 116 million households in the US.  As a consequence the decrease in disposable personal income attributable to this sort of interest rate change is approximately $113 billion, or a bit under 1% of GDP.
And that’s only the direct cost of the interest.  What cannot be measured is the impact on consumer spending that comes from changes in consumer behavior – that is, this is only the interest component of the change in rate.
If this interest rate change prompts people to pay down just 25% of their credit card debt over two year’s time the impact on GDP simply from paying down the debt as opposed to holding it level will raise the impact to approximately 1.9% of GDP, or about $270 billion annually in foregone consumer spending.
Good luck with your “recovery” thesis folks.

Unaccountable political formulation

Commentary by Chris Whalen:

“I submit that our spendthrift government, the Federal Reserve System and the TBTF banks together now comprise the paramount political tendency in America today. This tripartite “Alliance of Convenience,” let’s not call it a conspiracy, fits beautifully into the corporatist mold that seems to be America in the 21st Century – but only viewed by the elites in cities like New York and Washington. Many Americans of all political descriptions oppose this corrupt and unaccountable political formulation. I hope and expect that these differences will become even more pronounced as the election approaches next November.

The difference that separates the United States from the rest of the world is the difference which has always divided us, namely our at least theoretical devotion to individual liberty and free markets. Until we break the Alliance of Convenience between the Congress, the Fed and the large, TBTF banks and force our public officials to embrace core American values regarding transparency, insolvency and accountability, we will not in my view find a way out of the crisis. In may ways, the differences that separate the popular view and the views of our political elite have been turned on their heads compared with a century ago, but this does not mean that the debate and resulting political competition for ideas will be any less intense.”

It is terrible economics but wonderful politics

Interventionism is economic intervention by the government into the free market. It typically involves subsidies or penalties to particular groups. Interventions never improve the economy. Indeed, many interventions lead to additional interventions to attempt to correct the harm done by the first action. Interventions may improve the lot of a targeted group, but does so at the expense of society. While a particular group may be said to benefit, the total economy is always made worse off.

The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

Others like Bastiat expressed a similar views about a hundred years before. Based on Bastiat, this wrong-headed Keynesian thinking has become known as “The Broken Window Fallacy.”
Why do governments continue to do something that doesn’t work? Because it works for politicians in terms of “vote-buying.” The beneficiaries know that they have received a gift. The harm done to the other individuals cannot be traced back to the “beneficial” program. Hence, the harm cannot be blamed on anyone. It is terrible economics but wonderful politics.
Barry Ritholtz discusses the intervention of providing Credit for First-time Homebuyers. (Similar and equally disturbing analyses were produced regarding the Cash for Clunkers program.)

$15,000 Home Buyers Credit Costs $292,000/home

I have long argued that home prices are elevated, and until they normalize, the economy will be stuck in the doldrums. I even wrote a chapter of Bailout Nation, titled “The Virtue of Foreclosure.” I make a basic economic argument that the excess credit of the 2001-07 era is unwinding, and foreclosures are part of that process.
The simple premise is that the abdication of lending standards by both bank and nonbank lenders created an enormous credit bubble. Easy money drove home prices to unsustainable and unaffordable levels. People bought homes far more expensive than they could reasonably afford. Many assumed they would be able to refinance, paying for the excess costs by cashing out the price appreciation everyone knew was sure to follow.
Of course, we know what happened next. Prices rose unsustainably, credit tightened up, and the supply of greater fools abated. So much for the real estate perpetual motion machine.
What we were left with was an oversupply of new homes, and 4-8 million people in homes they couldn’t really afford. When measure by traditional metrics like median price to median income, costs of ownership relative to renting, or Homes as a % of GDP, houses were extremely expensive.
Running 300,000 monthly foreclosures — on pace to do 3 million foreclosures this year — the prior boom process is now unwinding. Excess prices are normalizing — but they still remain somewhat elevated compared to historical ratios. Perverse though it may be, the mass Foreclosures are helping to drive prices back to normalized historic levels.
Although this process is a necessary evil, Politicians of all stripes hate it. Between the NAR and NAHB, they have ready lobby fighting market forces. The lobbyists shamelessly ignore the role their members played in blowing up the bubble, and how they encouraged irresponsible and in many cases illegal behavior. The NAR and the NAHB have yet to offer up their mea culpas for their contributions to the mess, but their roles were substantial.
All of the home mortgage modification programs and foreclosure abatements are attempts by politicos to “ease the pain.” These programs have proven themselves to be ineffective in preventing defaulting mortgages from going into foreclosure. More than 50% of all mods slip into foreclosure again, and in some instances, we see 70-80% delinquency rates.
But the real question is “Why are we trying?” Except for those instances where there has been fraud or predatory lending, we really should not intervene. The foreclosure process is restoring prices to where they should be. (Note I suggested a voluntary program last year that helped banks forestall writedowns, and allowed viable homeowners to keep their houses, but also lowered prices).
Now comes the latest attempt by politicians to intervene in the housing market: Expanding the about to expire, $8,000, first time home buyers tax credit to a $15,000 credit for everyone.  This is counter productive. (Won’t that just make prices more expensive?) The lobbyists want to goose the housing market by any means possible — even if it is an expensive and unhealthy method.
A recent Brookings Institute analysis  demonstrates persuasively that the $8,000 subsidy actually costs $43,000 per extra house sold; worse yet, the new $15k tax credit will ultimately cost $292,000 per home.
How does that math work? :

“[The] refundable tax credit, which was part of the February stimulus bill, gives $8,000 to first-time homebuyers (but is phased out at higher incomes). It is scheduled to expire on December 1, 2009, although the sponsor of the initial proposal, Senator Johnny Isakson, now wants to extend the credit for another year, and expand it to $15,000. This extension would be a mistake.
Approximately 1.9 million buyers are expected to receive the credit, but more than 85 percent of these would have bought a home without the credit. This suggests a price tax of about $15 billion – which is twice what Congress intended – for approximately 350,000 additional home sales. At $43,000 per new home sale, this is a very expensive subsidy . . .
An extension and expansion of the tax credit will cost far more than the $15 billion of the current credit, likely in excess of an additional $30 billion. And the cost per new house sale will likely be much higher going forward, as a greater proportion of the sales will be for those who would have bought anyway, without the credit. (emphasis added)

In a latter posting, Gayer does the math on the new tax credit: A one-year, $15,000 tax credit  apply to all home buyers, would cost the Treasury ~$73.9 billion. Gayer estimates that beyond the people who would have purchased homes anyway, the increase in house sales would be about 253,000. Each extra home sales costs the Treasury $292,000 ($73.9 billion divided by 253,000.)
Randall Forsyth points out a lower (but still absurd) figures calculated by the NAHB:

The National Association of Home Builders, not exactly a disinterested bunch, figures the subsidy would boost house sales considerably more, by 700,000 homes. That implies each of those additional sales would cost American taxpayers only $133,000 — still “a very expensive and poorly targeted subsidy,” writes Gayer.

Its one thing to argue as to whether the government should be so brazenly intervening into the housing market, and I can understand reasonable people disagreeing. But the subsidy — whether its $133,000 or $292,000 — is absurd.

Now practically doomed to foreclosure

When it come to home ownership, condo prices are the last to rise and the first to go down. Given the glut of condos and unfinished condos in the bubble areas, the following article should not be surprising.
Please consider Experts: Plummeting prices have rendered condos nearly worthless by the Arizona Republic.

New federal loan-guarantee rules imposed to fend off future government losses from plummeting condominium prices have rendered condos utterly worthless, Valley real-estate experts said.The Federal Housing Administration rules, which took effect Oct. 1, prohibit any new FHA-backed loans on condo units in projects that include more than 25 percent commercial space.

In addition, no single investor – including the developer – may own more than 10 percent of the units in a particular project. That particular restriction alone creates a catch-22 from which condo builders most likely cannot escape, said mortgage originator Jill Hoogendyk of Wallick & Volk in Glendale. Another rule that has sellers and brokers scratching their heads prohibits FHA loans in condo developments that aren’t “primarily residential,” which could be taken to mean the FHA won’t guarantee loans in future mixed-use projects.
“I’m predicting that what we’ll see is whole condominium complexes sitting empty,” Hoogendyk said.
The new rules are a reaction to substantial losses on federally insured condominium mortgages in the past year, government officials have said compared with about 4,900 units sold during the same period.
Bowers said there are Phoenix-area condominium projects in which only a handful of buyers purchased individual units. The only viable use for such projects would be renting the unsold units as apartments, which many condo building owners already have been doing.
However, most have continued trying to sell units, hoping to eventually sell out as the real-estate market recovers. Because of the new rules, local and national experts seem to agree that owner-occupants in half-empty condo buildings are now practically doomed to foreclosure.
What applies to Arizona also applies to Florida, California, Las Vegas, and anywhere else there is a glut of condos.

On top of the above rules, it is going to be difficult to buy into buildings with less than 70% occupancy. Cash buyers can close of course, but I would not recommend it.