Business/Economics Links (16 June 2009)

Advertising is Good for You:
How restaurants get you to spend more


Angry Bear:
Context for Trade Deficit

Trade Deficits Resume Upward Climb


Crooks & Liars:
President Promises 600K New Jobs This Summer

Report: The Employed Are Hurting, Too. Meanwhile, Heritage Foundation Blames Unemployment Checks for Unemployment.


Dilbert:
"Dogbert the Pirate." ("That's a different business model." Hah!)

"Job Interview"

"Pretend you don't know that."

"Dogbert the CEO"


Econbrowser:
The Dollar as a Reserve Currency: Apres le Deluge

Do you see what I see? ("I'm still looking for, and still not seeing, the economic recovery that everybody is talking about.")

How Important Is China to World Growth?


Economist's View:
Chinese Manufacturers Accused of Predatory Pricing in India

"Cultural Authenticity and the Market" (This was slightly off the beaten track for Thoma, but if you have any interest in archeology, you might find this post of interest.)

Rogoff: Rebalancing the US-China Economic Relationship

Fed Watch: Rate Hike? ("Seriously, a rate hike in this environment? Or anytime before the end of 2009? At the moment, I just can't see it happening. That said, long rate are higher, and inflation expectations in some corners of the market are rising. What is going on?")

2009 Reith Lectures: Markets and Morals ("After my piece ran, The Times was flooded with scathing letters - mostly from economists (LAUGHTER), some from my own university. I utterly failed to understand the virtue of markets, they said, or the efficiencies of trade, or even the most elementary principles of economic rationality. Amidst the torrent of criticism, I did receive a sympathetic email from my old college Economics Professor. He understood the point I was trying to make, he wrote, but could he ask a small favor: would I mind not publicly revealing the identity of the person who had taught me Economics? (LAUGHTER)")


Robert Reich:
The Great Debt Scare: Why Has It Returned?


The Bonddad Blog:
Volcker on Recovery

Flow Of Funds Charts, Part I ("Consider the following charts from the Flow of Funds. Then ask yourself, will the consumer be able to lead us out of recession?")

Consumer Confidence Up

Is the Debt Binge Over?

More Signs of Bottoming

It's Looking Like a Jobless Recovery ("Right now there is no reason to hire -- and there won't be for awhile." This is not a surprise.)

Peter Schiff as Cassandra

A couple blogs I read have commented about the Youtube video (below) of financial commentator Peter Schiff's predictions from 2006 and 2007 about the current financial crisis. Crooks & Liars has given a very simplistic response: "Peter Schiff was right." Yeah, of course; so? Angry Bear thinks the real problem is that the various shows Schiff has appeared on (primarily Faux News, CNBC, and Bloomberg) deal in economic propaganda:

If we do not learn to understand "crap" reporting, if we do not learn to understand story telling for selfish purpose, if we do not learn to understand that propagandizing is not solely a political tool, but more importantly an economic tool, we will not solve our's and the worlds current economic condition.

That's true, but I'm not completely convinced that the problem is that the financial news shows and networks are really propagandizing. To me, propagandizing involves deceit, either through lying by omission, providing a loaded message or, as in the case of the Bush misadministration, just plain lying. I'm not sure that the financial news shows and networks are necessarily lying per se (even Faux News, although they do so blatantly on political news); instead, these people are "religious" fanatics. They have become true believers in the Gordon Gecko mantra "Greed is good." With the American economy jimmied through debt instruments (such as bonds), not even significant economic problems in the past (e.g., the Crash of 1987, the S&L crisis of the late 80s-early 90s, or the recessions of 1990-91 or 2001-02) have caused any doubt in their minds that the system is broken. Schiff, to me, is like the woman from Greek mythology, Cassandra.

Cassandra, the daughter of King Priam of Troy, was loved by Apollo, who gave her the gift of prophecy; however, because she would not return his love, he cursed her to correctly predict the future yet never be believed:

In more modern literature, Cassandra has often served as a model for tragedy and Romance, and has given rise to the archetypal character of someone whose prophetic insight is obscured by insanity, turning their revelations into riddles or disjointed statements that are not fully comprehended until after the fact. (Wikipedia)

Schiff correctly predicted the future several years ago, beginning to warn of the structural problems in the economy (that have not been addressed yet, despite all these billions of dollars being spent in bailouts), yet, at that time, Schiff's message was largely ignored if not publicly derided. (Has Laffer ever paid Schiff the one cent bet and written a letter of apology?) The paradigm, that "Greed is good" and the idea that the American economy can survive on debt and a service economy while hollowing out the manufacturing sector, needs to be broken. Now if that paradigm is "propaganda," then I'll agree with that too.

Want a Strong Economy? Vote for a Democrat!

Yesterday, I highlighted a post over at Angry Bear that showed that every Democratic president since World War II has left office with a lower unemployment rate than the one he inherited from his predecessor, whereas only one Republican president, Ronald Reagan, could make the same claim. The moral of that story: if you want a job, you should vote for a Democrat.

Today, the folks at Angry Bear have ranked the last fourteen presidents (since Herbert Hoover) as to how the American economy did in real terms (i.e., adjusted for inflation) during each administration. Interestingly enough, five of the top seven presidents were Democrats, and only one Democratic president (Truman) was in the bottom seven. Below is the listing of presidents and the last two paragraphs of the essay; you can read the entire post here.

1. FDR
2. LBJ
3. JFK
4. Clinton
5. Reagan
6. Carter
7. Nixon
8. Ike
10. GW (that's 10 so far – don't be surprised if he sinks further into the mire)
11. Ford
12. Bush Sr.
13. Truman
14. Hoover

What the list shows us, is that, the top half of the spots are dominated by Democrats. Two Republicans, Reagan and Nixon, make it in (5th and 7th, respectively). It also shows us that the bottom half of the list is populated almost exclusively with Republicans. The one Democrat in the bottom half of the list, not incidentally, is the Democrat most beloved of Republicans today: Harry Truman. George Bush has compared himself to Truman, and a few weeks, Sarah Palin told us how she too was comparable to Truman. What are the odds that prominent Republicans would compare themselves with FDR or LBJ? (Snarky answer – probably about the same as the odds a Republican administration would produce a growth rate comparable to FDR or LBJ.)

Now, after 70 years of data, after observing what we've observed over all sorts of conditions, it is hard to conclude anything but this: one party advocates policies that produce rapid economic growth, and one part dismisses those policies with epithets like "socialism" and advocates instead policies that produce dismal economic growth. And dismal economic growth has consequences. Poor economic growth makes people worse off, and hits them in their pocketbook. And when people are hurting financially, their health suffers, the rate of divorce goes up, suicides increase, and the abortion rate increases. So those who advocate the policies that bring us lower incomes, poorer health, break up families, increase suicides, and increase the rate of abortions are doing us all a lot of harm. More, in fact, than Osama or Saddam could possibly have done. And yet, the folks who advocates those policies question the patriotism of the rest of us. It's very, very strange.

The Economic Version of "Final Destination 3"

There is someone, walking behind you
Turn around, look at me
There is someone, watching your footsteps
Turn around, look at me
One more post on economics (for now), this time an unusual look at housing prices. The New York Times produced a graph of Robert Shiller's American housing price index, which shows what prices have been like from 1890 through 2006. For example, if a standard house cost $100,000 in 1890 (in 2006 dollars), a similar home would have sold for $199,000 in 2006. What's interesting, though, is that someone has taken Shiller's data and transformed it into a roller-coaster ride using Atari's RollerCoaster Tycoon (R)3 software. (Be sure to look at the bottom right corner to view the year.)



The problem with this video, though, is that it stops short of what's happened in the past two years. Back in late May, The Economist, which I do read (apparently this is a political joke now), produced a graph that shows this past year's plunge. To give an idea of what the end of the roller-coaster ride should look like, one wit at Angry Bear suggested the following video:



HT: Angry Bear

Want a Job? Vote for a Democrat!

A couple of interesting posts on unemployment today, the first being from Spencer at Angry Bear:

So much for Sarah Palin's claim that Republican tax cuts create jobs. In the post WW II era every Democratic President has left office with a lower unemployment rate than they inherited from their predecessor while only one Republican president left office with a lower unemployment rate than they inherited. That was Ronald Reagan, but his first term still holds the record for the highest average unemployment rate of any post - WW II four year Presidential term.

George Bush inherited a 3.9% unemployment rate and the results of all his tax cuts has been a rise in the unemployment rate to 6.1%, so far. By contrast Bill Clinton inherited a 7.4% unemployment rate and with his prudent fiscal policy left Bush a 3.9% unemployment rate.

Leave it to Team Bush to be the only American President to throw a war that failed to stimulate the economy.

Another scary graph comes from Economist's View:

A grim morning: Double plus ungood news on multiple fronts this morning. The credit crunch is getting worse: LIBOR jumped again, the TED spread is at a new record. Bad news on employment: payrolls down 159,000, average work week down, official unemployment rate flat at 6.1 percent but broad measure (U6) up from 10.7 to 11.

We are going over the edge.

The track record: This chart shows U6, the broadest measure of unemployment and underemployment from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. (No data available before 1994.)

I Hate To Say I Told You So...

Metaphorically speaking, of course. One of the things I love about Islam is that it's a very practical religion. Non-Muslims may not like the various rules within the religion, but I have found, by and large, that Allah (swt) put them there for very good reasons. For example, "don't drink alcohol." How many benefits would there be to the individual, to society, if people didn't drink? How many lives would be saved, for example, if there were no drunk drivers? I used to read "Dear Abby." How many letter writers' lives would be changed for the better if they lived an Islamic lifestyle? "Dear Abby" would probably go out of business.

Likewise, the world is now in the midst of an economic crisis the likes of which no one has seen since my parents were toddlers. How much better would the economy be if it followed Islamic business principles? The following passage comes from one of the economics blogs I read, Angry Bear:

It was about an interview by Bill Moyers of John Bogle. He noted:

JOHN BOGLE: Well, it's gotten misshapen because the financial side of the economy is dominating the productive side of the economy...We've become a financial economy which has overwhelmed the productive economy to the detriment of investors and the detriment ultimately of our society.

I want to come back to the difference between the financial system and the productive system. The productive system adds to the value of our economy. And, by and large, the financial system subtracts. And, yet, it's growing and growing and growing. And this short term thing where short term orientation in which trading pieces of paper is regarded as a social value. It is not a social value.

Go listen to it. Then listen to Mr. Moyers latest interview with Kevin Philips.

But what's here that doesn't get the attention is the United States in the last 20 years undertook an enormous transformation of itself with no attention paid. And what it means is and what makes all this so frightening is the country is at risk because of the size of the financial sector that has never been graded on its competence and behavior in any serious way. They are the economy at this point. And we are now seeing what happens when a 20 to 21 percent of GDP financial sector starts to come unglued.

You had essentially a financial sector that, let's say, was sort of neck and neck with manufacturing back in the late 1980s. But they got control in a lot of ways in the agenda. Finance has been bailed out. I mean, everybody thinks this is horrible now what we're seeing in terms of bailouts. Even a lot of the people who do it think it's bad.

This has been going on since the beginning of the 1980s. Finance has been preferred as the sector that got government support. Manufacturing slides, nobody helps. Finance has a problem, Federal Reserve to the rescue. Treasury to the rescue. Subsidies this, that, and other.

I am certain we have to do something to help the money flow such that it does not take down the entire system. It would be cutting off our noses to spite our faces not to protect ourselves from what a few have done. We have to be adults, suck it up and clean up the alcohol aroma vomit all over our bathroom.

But, we do not have to let it happen again. There is only one solution to this and no one, not anyone is pointing it out: Put the financial sector of the economy back in alignment with the productive sector. What got us in this mess is our (well not all of us) belief that the financial sector can stand on it's own as a primary wealth/money creator. It can not. Never could. But, believing it put the impetus to the creation of “vehicles” for creating trades. You know all those securitized whatevers, and alphabet monikers, and insurance for insurance for insurance based on alphabet monikers of securitized whatevers. What did people expect would happen when you turn the part of your system that is dependent on activity in an other part for it's existence into a stand alone money creator. If you are going to keep generating money from money, then you are going to have to keep coming up with new “product.” New designs, new marketing to create an need and want, new packaging, BRANDING.

Again, Mr. Philip put's it this way:

But we've seen the central component of the rise of the financial sector is the rise of the debt industry. Mortgage, credit cards, all these gimmicks that Wall Street sells-- just all kinds of products. And, of course, the products are laying an egg all over the world right now.

Get it? We take an industry subservient to the needs of production and turn it into a competitor of production. I can polish and sell rocks without a bank to borrow from. I can accumulate wealth over time. My business may grow slowly and so may my wealth, but I can do it. But, remove all non-financial activities and what does financial do to survive? What does it do to survive with no one needing a loan, backing, no desire to produce in a way that increases our productivity such that we have more time to purse happiness (that constitution purpose)? We treat finance as if it is the chicken/egg question. It is not. Finance came second and is dependent.

This particular author, "Divorced one like Bush," isn't a Muslim as far as I know, but he actually advocates a principle of Islamic finance: Making money from money is not Islamically acceptable.

Money is only a medium of exchange, a way of defining the value of a thing; it has no value in itself, and therefore should not be allowed to give rise to more money, via fixed interest payments, simply by being put in a bank or lent to someone else. The human effort, initiative, and risk involved in a productive venture are more important than the money used to finance it. Muslim jurists consider money as potential capital rather than capital, meaning that money becomes capital only when it is invested in business. Accordingly, money advanced to a business as a loan is regarded as a debt of the business and not capital and, as such, it is not entitled to any return (i.e. interest). Muslims are encouraged to purchase and are discouraged from keeping money idle so that, for instance, hoarding money is regarded as being unacceptable. In Islam, money represents purchasing power which is considered to be the only proper use of money. This purchasing power (money) cannot be used to make more purchasing power (money) without undergoing the intermediate step of it being used for the purchase of goods and services.

Principles Of Islamic Banking

In Islam, we use money for productive purposes that are for the benefit of the community as a whole. Money is not to be used to make more money directly, such as through interest. We use money to make more money indirectly, by investing money into productive assets, such as businesses, that will (insha'allah) make profits. It's a slower process, but it's a much more stable and safer system than the highly leveraged economy that's now melting down.

Update: For some similar posts, read Islamic Finance Shows Banks the Way Forward and Islamic Banking Restrains Bankruptcy.

Your Urgent Help Needed

Classic; this would be funny if it weren't true. From Angry Bear:

Dear American:

I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.
I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.
I am working with Mr. Phil Gram, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. This transactin is 100% safe.
This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.
Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.
Yours Faithfully Minister of Treasury Paulson