Tag: Economics

  • John A. Allison: The current problem, and what to do

    Last Thursday, John A. Allison visited Wichita to address the annual economic outlook conference produced by the Center for Economic Development and Business Research (CEDBR) at Wichita State University.

    Allison is chairman and former CEO of BB&T Corporation, the nation’s 10th largest financial-holding company. Its headquarters are in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. His talk first diagnosed the cause of the crisis. You can read my coverage of it at Causes of global finance crisis explained in Wichita

    Having described the cause, Allison told what we need to do to fix the mess we’re in, and to avoid future crises like the present.

    One problem is the credit rating agencies and the functional oligopoly granted them by the government. These agencies — Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s, and Fitch — provide ratings for bonds. (These are the “AAA” and other ratings that many people are familiar with.) The oligopoly comes the fact that many institutional investors may purchase only those securities that have been rated by one of these firms.

    These rating firms made many mistakes, and not just small mistakes. These companies did a poor job of analyzing the risk of these securities. That lead to insurance firms, most notably AIG, becoming deeply in trouble. The justification for saving or bailing out AIG is that there was a systems risk. AIG’s relationships with other parties such as the investment bank Goldman Sachs lead many to believe that the fall of AIG would lead to the fall of these other institutions.

    Allison said that if you’re former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who was once chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, it’s easy to believe that if Goldman Sachs goes out of business, the world goes out of business. Allison asked: “Is that a systems risk or is that crony capitalism?”

    There was an irrational belief in mathematical models. There is the “tail problem,” which comes from models usually assuming a normal mathematical distribution (the familiar bell-shaped curve). The events out in the tails are usually discounted, as they are rare. But Allison said “For anyone who has built a house in a hundred year flood plain, I’ll give you the bad news: we’re going to have a flood.” Given enough time, these rare events become a certainty.

    Market corrections, Allison said, are healthy phenomenon. These events drive companies that are misallocating capital out of business, and the world is better for it.

    One of the little-known things is that part of the reason for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) was to bail out General Electric. GE had done a lot of risky long-term financing using commercial paper, and this lead to trouble.

    All the major banks participated in TARP, as there was huge regulatory pressure. There were four very large banks that were on the verge of failure. But the government didn’t want it to look like it was bailing out just those banks, so it forced all large banks to participate, even though many were healthy.

    In his career, Allison said. Citigroup has failed three times, and each time they emerged bigger and worse. That, he said, will also be the result of the current bail out.

    The five banks that are judged, as is Citigroup, as “too large to fail” will have advantages like lower cost of capital, and they’ll be able to engage in risky activities without the risk of going out of business if investments fail.

    Allison said the government should have let these banks fail. Alternatively, they should be broken up, so that none are in the “too large to fail” category.

    Going forward

    “We ought to cut government spending, not increase it,” Allison recommended. The belief that wasteful government spending on the wrong things can increase our standard of living is irrational. It’s based on the belief of the economist John Maynard Keynes. He recommended that we pay people to dig holes in the ground, and then pay them to fill the holes. Will that raise our standard of living?

    In the long term price instability is a major problem, as it leads to economic miscalculation.

    The biggest issue, Allison said, is the continued attack on capitalism. Related is the attack on the wealthy, in terms of both taxation and ethics. Most very productive people become wealthy. If we attack these people, they become more conservative and less willing to take risk.

    The government needs to privatize Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and let banks make mortgages the way the had for many years before the government became involved in the business.

    We also need a market-based monetary standard, probably based on gold. “You can’t just print gold,” Allison said. If we can’t do this, we need to do as Milton Friedman advocated, which is to grow the money supply at a slow and predictable rate, probably about 3% per year.

    There should also be less FDIC insurance, so that the shareholders of a bank bear risk, rather than the government.

    Free trade is also needed, even though many conservatives oppose this. One of the reasons for the Great Depression was trade tariffs. Other countries responded to ours, and there was less trade.

    Allison said that the most important problem we have is philosophical. Where does free medical care come from, for example? He said that the idea of rights on which the United States was built is that people have right to what they produce themselves, but not what others produce.

    Free medical care and affordable housing are a perversion of this concepts of rights. The right to free medical care, he said, is the right to enslave a doctor to provide the care, or to enslave someone else to pay the doctor. That’s the opposite of the American system of rights.

    Under such a system, no one has the right to their own life.

    He also addressed the difference between short-term and long-term thinking. Some things that work in the short-term are destructive in the long-term, such as the pick-a-payment mortgages.

    The “free lunch mentality” leads to a lack of personal responsibility, and that is the death of democracy. The “tyranny of the majority” — where a majority can vote a free lunch for themselves, eventually the providers quit.

    The cure is the opposite. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness demand personal responsibility. Each person has a moral right to their own life.

    “The United States is the only country founded on the concept that people should act in their rational long-term self interest, properly understood.” He said that you shouldn’t take advantage of other people, as it doesn’t work. You also shouldn’t self-sacrifice, as you have the right to your own life.

    Where do we go now?

    We are probably in the beginning of an economic recovery. Allison feels the most likely scenario is a period of stagflation — slow growth, high inflation, and higher unemployment than we should have — similar to the 1970s. This would not be a great time, but not a horrible time, he said.

    He is more concerned about the long term. The liabilities in the social security and Medicare systems, our huge operating deficits, a dysfunctional foreign policy, and a failed K through 12 educational system lead to the certainty that in 25 years, the United States will be broke.

    What we need to do, he said, is the opposite of what we’re doing. We need to return to individual rights, the incentives that free markets provide, and less regulation.

    The “American sense of life,” Allison said, means that we are a very individualistic nation and not collectivist.

    Business makes the world a better place to live by providing quality products and services. A primary difference between the United States and Africa is that we have better businesses.

    Allison mentioned two pillars that make the human mind productive. The first is Freedom and liberty. He drew a parallel between academic freedom and economic freedom. Those who believe in academic freedom, however, often want to restrict economic and business freedom.

    The second pillar is knowledge that comes from education, in the broadest context. We need an environment that encourages competition, discipline, and creativity in our educational system.

    Allison encouraged the audience to seek happiness through a “life well-lived.” Self-esteem is developed by doing your job the best you possibly can, he said. Depending on government for security is the European way, but not the American way.

  • ‘Battle for the World Economy’ to be presented in Wichita

    AFP — Kansas presents a new luncheon video series: “Commanding Heights: the Battle for the World Economy.” The video will be shown, and then there is time for discussion.

    11:30 am to 1:00 pm, Wednesday, October 7, 2009
    Mike’s Steakhouse
    2131 S. Broadway, Wichita, Kansas 67211
    316-265-8122

    Menu: Individual choices off the menu with individual tickets plus gratuity.

    For more information, contact John Todd, Wichita AFP volunteer coordinator at john@johntodd.net, 316-312-7335 cell, or
    Susan Estes, AFP Field Director, Kansas at sestes@afphq.org, 316-269-4170.

    “Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy, based on the best-selling book by Pulitzer Prize-winner Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw, confronts head-on critical concerns about the new interconnected world. Commanding Heights dramatically captures the issues that have defined the wealth and fate of nations and shows how the battle over the world economy will shape our lives in the twenty-first century.”

  • Causes of global finance crisis explained in Wichita

    Today, an audience of 600 business and civic leaders attended the 30th annual Economic Outlook Conference at Century II, produced by the Center for Economic Development and Business Research (CEDBR) at Wichita State University.

    The featured speaker was John A. Allison, chairman and former CEO of BB&T Corporation, the nation’s 10th largest financial-holding company. Its headquarters are in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

    The primary cause of the recent financial crisis is our federal government’s policies and actions, Allison said.

    It’s not the fault of free markets, as some allege, because we don’t have a free market economy. We have a mixed economy, with some industries such as financial services being highly regulated by government.

    What was the cause of the real estate bubble? We built too many houses, many of larger size than we should have built, and we built them in the wrong places, he said.

    How did we make such a mistake? Allison said there are four causes or actors that contributed to the problem: the Federal Reserve Bank, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), housing policy as implemented by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

    The action of these agencies turned a natural correction into a panic. Also, the policies government has taken since then may help us in the short term, but will almost certainly hurt us in the long run.

    The Federal Reserve’s errors include creating inducements to take risk based on false signals. The inverted yield curve that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke created induced banks to take on more risk than they had been assuming. Also, “The huge level of federal debt we have today would not be practical if the government did not own the monetary system.”

    The Fed has sophisticated financial models to help it manage the economy, but these can’t integrate the economic activity of billions of humans. Illustrating this, Allison mentioned Frederich Hayek’s “fatal conceit,” where smart people believe they can do the impossible.

    The FDIC contributed to the problem by allowing start-up banks to offer high interest rates to depositors. With FDIC insurance, depositors don’t have any incentive to investigate the soundness of the banks in which they place their deposits. This has led to a lack of market discipline.

    Government housing policy has been a long-term problem. Spurred by the theory that home ownership for everyone is a good thing, in 1999, the Clinton administration announced that it would be the goal of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to have at least half their loans in so-called “affordable housing,” now called sub-prime mortgages.

    At the time, economists, including liberal economists, warned that this is risky, and that this course could take them down, and the U.S. economy with it within ten years. Nine years later it happened, Allison said, and the government was forced to bail out these two agencies.

    Politics played a role in this. Allison said he served on financial services roundtable committee for nine years. This committee warned Congress numerous times that it was certain that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae would go broke. But Congress wouldn’t listen. Part of the reason was the political contributions to both Democrats (that party’s single largest contributor) and Republicans made by these two agencies.

    Fair value accounting regulations, particularly mark-to-market, led to inaccurate valuation of some assets when markets are thin (not many buyers). When banks were forced to mark down the values of assets more than what economic reality indicated, the loss of capital was multiplied, because banks are leveraged. This lead to larger losses in lending capacity that what was necessary.

    Banks with cash might be willing to assume the economic risk of purchasing some of these assets, but they couldn’t assume the accounting risk of future losses. This is an example of the distortions produced by our government-created accounting system, regulated by the SEC. Large and even small businesses don’t use this accounting system for their own management, because it’s not a good measure of value.

    The actions of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae also led to the end of the “originate and hold” model for home mortgages, where banks and thrifts would make home loans, and then hold those loans as part of their portfolio of assets. Private institutions simply could not compete with these government-backed institutions.

    This led to the “broker model” or “originate and sell,” which had a terrible incentive. If you simply originate loans but don’t hold them and its risk, your incentive is to originate as many loans as possible, without regard to the riskiness of the loan.

    Summarizing the first part of Allison’s lecture: It is government policy that is largely responsible for the crisis. Free markets are commonly being blamed for the crisis, but this assessment is false. Our economy, as Allison has shown, is far removed from free and unregulated. Government intervenes everywhere.

    Allison presented a great deal of information in his talk, including some steps we should take to get out of this crisis and to prevent another. I’ll report on this soon.

  • Articles of Interest

    Wichita airport, golf, Sweden’s economy, federal government hiring needs, depression.

    Drop in fliers could alter terminal plan

    The Wichita Eagle reports that a drop in passengers might cause the airport to alter its plans. “The trouble locally is that Wichita was counting on increased traffic to finance a planned new terminal building to replace its 1950s-vintage facility.” I’ve been in favor of keeping costs at the airport as low as possible, which means making a small renovation rather than a wholesale replacement. See Wichita’s new airport terminal: Has its time passed? and Consider carefully costs of a new Wichita airport terminal: “As Wichita considers building a new terminal at its airport, we should pause to consider the effect an expensive new terminal would have on the cost of traveling to and from Wichita, and by extension, the economic health and vitality of our town. … Airlines are starting to become alarmed at the high costs some airports charge airlines for using their facilities.”

    Wichita City Council approves $1 golf fee increase

    The Wichita Eagle reports an increase in golf fees at city-owned courses. Editorialist Rhoda Holman wrote: “To their credit, the six Wichita City Council members who voted Tuesday to raise golf course fees clearly hated to do it.” What, does hating to do something mitigate its effect or make it heroic in some way? If the city really wants to improve the golfing experience for Wichitans, it should immediately sell all the courses it owns.

    The Swedish Model

    There are those in America who praise Sweden as an example of a country with a huge government and prosperity at the same time. In The Swedish Model, the Cato Institute’s Richard W. Rahn looks at the history of Sweden over the last century and concludes this: “Those who wish to chase the Swedish model need first to decide which model they seek: The high-growth, pre-1960 model; the low-growth model of the 1970s and 1980s; or the reformist, welfare-state model of recent years. The irony is that the current Democratic Congress and administration are rapidly emulating the parts of the Swedish model that proved disastrous and rejecting those parts that are proving to be successful.”

    Federal Government Needs Massive Hiring Binge, Study Finds

    A Washington Post story finds that “The federal government needs to hire more than 270,000 workers for ‘mission-critical’ jobs over the next three years, a surge prompted in part by the large number of baby-boomer federal workers reaching retirement age, according to the results of a government-wide survey being released Thursday.” All told, the study found that the federal government needs to hire 600,000 workers over the next four years, which would increase the workforce by one-third.

    The Real Town Hall Story

    E.J. Dionne Jr. writes in the Washington Post that the impression that television viewers may form of the last month’s town hall meetings may be false: “Much as the far left of the antiwar movement commanded wide coverage during the Vietnam years, so now are extremists on the right hogging the media stage — with the media’s complicity.”

    What Happened to the ‘Depression’?

    Writing in the Wall Street Journal, economist Allan H. Meltzer makes the case that the recession is probably over, or will be soon: “Most economists now believe that the recession is expected to end before much of the government spending takes hold.” The spending referred to is the stimulus bill passed earlier this year. So what should we do? “The proper response now is to repeal what remains of the misguided stimulus and avoid the cap-and-trade program.”

  • John Stossel to speak in Wichita

    ABC television journalist and author John Stossel will be in Wichita on October 12 to deliver a lecture as part of Wichita State University’s Elliott School of Communications 20th anniversary celebration. The Wichita Business Journal article ABC’s Stossel to speak in Wichita provides more details of this event.

    Stossel is an anomaly in the mainstream media, as he is one of the few libertarians in that business. Milton Friedman wrote this about Stossel’s first book Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media: “Stossel is that rare creature, a TV commentator who understands economics, in all its subtlety. Read this fascinating book to learn — example by example — how the indirect, unseen effects of government policies often dominate the direct, seen effects. Again and again, policies have the effects opposite of those intended.”

    P.J. O’Rourke wrote this about the same book: “There’s nothing matter-of-fact about John Stossel’s fact-finding. He seeks the truths that destroy truisms, wields reason against all that’s unreasonable, and uses and upholds the ideals that puncture sanctimonious liberalism. He loves liberty in a way that goes far beyond liberalism. He makes the maddening mad. And Stossel’s tales of the outrageous are outrageously amusing.”

  • Remembering Rose Friedman

    Today we learn that Rose Friedman has died. The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice has a notice at Remembering Rose Friedman. Also Reason has Rose Friedman, R.I.P. From the Reason notice:

    “Because she was collaborator on his major works of popular political and economic philosophy and advocacy, most importantly Capitalism and Freedom and Free to Choose, she deserves her fair share of the glory and regard her husband Milton got. Consult my March 2007 article in Reason magazine for the ideas and accomplishments of the Friedmans in helping make America a place that is in some respects actually freer, and in most respects an intellectual environment where the idea of human liberty has wider play than it did before they did their long, arduous work of explaining the benefits of liberty, often against great opposition.”

  • Public effort should benefit all taxpayers, not a select few

    The following article by Dave Trabert, president of the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy, was printed in yesterday’s Wichita Eagle.

    Trabert makes the case for broad-based policies that will benefit all companies, not just those who happen to qualify for government economic development programs.

    A specific example of a small business struggling but not qualifying for assistance was presented by Steve Compton, owner of the Eaton Steakhouse in Wichita. In February he spoke to the Wichita City Council and explained the difficulties his business is facing. He asked the council to consider small businesses just as much as large businesses and corporations when deciding who will receive economic assistance. My post At Wichita City Council, why are some doors open, and others closed? holds Mr. Compton’s remarks. The post In Wichita, let’s have economic development for all holds further information about this.

    At nearly every Wichita city council meeting, the city dishes out economic development favors. Many are in the form of industrial revenue bonds, which allow companies to buy property without paying property tax for some term of years, and in some cases, they can avoid paying sales tax on the purchase. These favors seek to narrow the tax base at the same time politicians like Mayor Carl Brewer promote broadening the tax base. For those companies who can’t qualify for these economic development programs — not to mention residents — their taxes are higher than they would be.

    Public Effort Should Benefit All Taxpayers, Not a Select Few

    Dave Trabert
    Flint Hills Center for Public Policy

    A recent Wichita Eagle commentary by Doug Stanley, vice chairman of the Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition, made the case for government to invest taxpayer money in developing “shovel-ready” sites to attract a wide range of new employers, especially large industrial and manufacturing companies. He says consultants who work with large employers on site selection give preference to communities that have made the upfront investment to save them time and obviously, a lot of money.

    The logic is that communities want jobs, so some companies and their site consultants use that carrot to entice local and state governments to absorb a portion of their upfront risk. It’s easy to understand what’s in it for the company receiving a taxpayer-funded inducement to build, and these deals certainly give elected officials a chance to show taxpayers that they’re working to create jobs. Some jobs are created if one of these deals gets done and that’s a good thing, but “buying” those jobs is not the best use of taxpayer money.

    First of all, it’s a roll of the dice as to whether spending money on shovel-ready sites will actually result in job creation, and even when it does, it’s not unheard of for some recipients of taxpayer money to close or leave town. Sometimes they even threaten to leave if they don’t get more money for new projects. It’s not unlike betting money in Las Vegas; you might win once in a while but the House is the only winner in the long run. Come to think of it, though, the bettor always wins in this case. If they place a bet on a site and eventually land some jobs, they get the credit; if they lose, well, it wasn’t their money … it belonged to taxpayers.

    The real conundrum, though, is why government and economic development entities place risky bets that only really pay off for a select few instead of going after a sure thing where everyone wins. A new employer coming to town with a few hundred or even a thousand jobs gets a lot of headlines and large employers are certainly important, but they pale in comparison to the jobs provided by small business. According to Dun & Bradstreet data analyzed at YourEconomy.org, 73.5% of Kansans employed in 2007 worked for businesses that employed fewer than 100 people.

    Instead of picking winners and losers, government should be doing things that benefit all taxpayers and employers of all sizes. Find ways to operate more efficiently and reduce property, sales and income taxes. Eliminate a lot of the bureaucratic red tape in the licensing and permitting process. Creating a stable, pro taxpayer environment is the best kind of economic development; instead of costing taxpayers money, it puts money in their pockets.

    There’s no doubt that governments and economic development agencies feel pressure to compete with communities that offer inducements to potential employers, but they should be creating strategies that benefit all taxpayers instead of a select few.

  • Wichita needs a bargain on parks maintenance

    As the City of Wichita struggles to make its budget work, one proposal is to reduce the number of parks workers, replacing them with contract workers. The city believes it could save $1 million per year. Parks workers and the union officials that represent them are opposed to this plan. Taxpayers, however, should be relieved that the city is considering this action, and should be asking why this wasn’t done last year.

    There’s a lot of misconceptions surrounding this issue. At a public hearing held on July 1, a speaker said that the private sector lays off workers because there’s no demand, and that’s not the case with the city’s parks.

    That’s not entirely true. Sometimes companies reduce employment levels because of the need to reduce costs. The same amount of work — sometimes even more — must be done.

    This speaker went on to say that layoffs won’t save taxpayers money because the workers will need to pay for health care, retirement, food, rent, and mortgages. “Dumping these people on the street,” therefore, means that the taxpayer pays for these things in other ways. This is false. While taxpayers may pay for unemployment benefits and some social services, they’re not going to pay for things like retirement plans for laid off workers.

    It seems as though this speaker — and a few others — view the city as a magical moneymaking machine. Pour in a few tax dollars, some work gets done, and the money spent on salaries magically creates wealth in our community.

    This is exemplified by another speaker’s remarks on the effect of the parks workers on the local economy: “For every one dollar we earn, it has a 10 to 15 dollar effect to the positive.”

    This is absurd. If such a statement were in fact true, we should pay the parks workers — all city workers, for that matter — more. And we should hire as many as we can find.

    We must remember that it is taxpayers who pay the wages and other costs of city employees. If allowed to keep more of their money instead of sending it to the government in the form of taxes, taxpayers will spend and invest that money in ways that generate economic activity and jobs. There’s nothing magic about government spending in this regard.

    In fact, government spending produces less benefit than private spending. One of the seven principles of sound public policy as defined by Lawrence W. Reed is “Nobody spends somebody else’s money as carefully as he spends his own.”

    While the parks workers have spoken and their union representatives have written op-eds in the newspaper, few have spoken for the beleaguered taxpayer. And in a time of reduced employment in our community, it’s important to keep the cost of government as low as possible.

    The city has a responsibility to its citizens to operate as efficiently as possible. If it is possible to have work such as park maintenance done less expensively, the city should do so. It should have done so long ago.

  • Profit motive in health care is essential

    Those in favor of government health care often argue that private insurance companies are inefficient, wasting huge sums in administrative overhead that provides no benefit to patients.

    At the same time, the same people blast private insurance companies for being driven by the profit motive.

    I wonder: who has the greater incentive to avoid wasting money on useless overhead? The government, or a private company that can keep the money saved as profits?

    Further: private health insurance companies operate in competitive markets. Those companies that spend needlessly on overhead that doesn’t add value will go out of business. That’s the neat thing about competition and free markets, as realized in the form of profits and losses: these forces help companies learn the best way to organize and how much to spend on the various things that make their businesses run.

    Companies that make unwise decisions will see their profits suffer or will incur losses. This is a signal that other companies are more efficient.

    Government, on the other hand, is immune to the forces of competition. It can waste whatever it wants with little consequence. Once in a while people notice and vote someone out of office, but this doesn’t happen very often.

    For those who point to Medicare’s low overhead costs, here’s a blog post that explains: Busting Medicare’s “Low Overhead Advantage” Myth.