In which Myriam finds our financers are awash in cash, and why that’s a problem.

$600 trillion. That’s the value of the financial economy, or it was in 2010, according to a new report by private equity fund Bain Capital, ‘A world awash in money’. It’s ten times as much as the value of everything the whole world produces in a year.
You’d think the global financial crisis would have destroyed plenty of financial wealth, but the financial economy has rebounded a whole lot quicker than the real economy has. Since the GFC, world output of goods and service (you know, stuff) has barely grown. However, the volume of financial assets (financial holdings, the balance sheets of banks, the value of financial instruments) continued to grow, fast.
“The expansion of the financial sector has accounted for an increasing share of world economic growth for years,” Bain’s report states. “The shift began with the end of the Bretton Woods system in the early 1970s and has accelerated since the 1980s with the advent of financial engineering, computing power and regulatory changes that reinforced it. The steady, decades-long build-up of financial capital has masked the fact that real economic growth was slowing.”
This isn’t great for people who want to invest money, which is what Bain is concerned with.
“The most immediate effect [of capital abundance] has been to paralyze, confuse and distort investment decisions.”
In good economic times, people who have capital (money) look for things to invest in that’ll give them a good risk-adjusted rate of return. This sets up a virtuous cycle – good investments grow GDP which gives investors profits which gives them more money to invest. But if there’s more money than there are things to invest in, that pattern of wealth creation doesn’t work as well.
So what are investors doing now? Partly, they’re sitting on their money, much to the detriment of national economies desperate for investment. And when they’re not doing that, they’re investing in bubbles which offer them a way to make a quick return on investment.
With more money to throw into them, asset bubbles are getting worse, Bain says.
The chart that opened this post (click on it to enlarge) makes this point. The line represents world GDP growth. You can see why the GFC has been the worst thing to hit the global economy in decades.  
The worrying thing is if the private equity fund is right, too many financial assets are exactly what cause investors to recklessly plough their money into asset bubbles in the first place.
As long as financial assets keep growing, and investors keep doing what they’re doing, we haven’t seen the end of the economic turmoil that’s characterised the start of the twenty-first century.

In which Myriam finds our financers are awash in cash, and why that’s a problem.


$600 trillion. That’s the value of the financial economy, or it was in 2010, according to a new report by private equity fund Bain Capital, ‘A world awash in money’. It’s ten times as much as the value of everything the whole world produces in a year.

You’d think the global financial crisis would have destroyed plenty of financial wealth, but the financial economy has rebounded a whole lot quicker than the real economy has. Since the GFC, world output of goods and service (you know, stuff) has barely grown. However, the volume of financial assets (financial holdings, the balance sheets of banks, the value of financial instruments) continued to grow, fast.

“The expansion of the financial sector has accounted for an increasing share of world economic growth for years,” Bain’s report states. “The shift began with the end of the Bretton Woods system in the early 1970s and has accelerated since the 1980s with the advent of financial engineering, computing power and regulatory changes that reinforced it. The steady, decades-long build-up of financial capital has masked the fact that real economic growth was slowing.”

This isn’t great for people who want to invest money, which is what Bain is concerned with.

“The most immediate effect [of capital abundance] has been to paralyze, confuse and distort investment decisions.”

In good economic times, people who have capital (money) look for things to invest in that’ll give them a good risk-adjusted rate of return. This sets up a virtuous cycle – good investments grow GDP which gives investors profits which gives them more money to invest. But if there’s more money than there are things to invest in, that pattern of wealth creation doesn’t work as well.

So what are investors doing now? Partly, they’re sitting on their money, much to the detriment of national economies desperate for investment. And when they’re not doing that, they’re investing in bubbles which offer them a way to make a quick return on investment.

With more money to throw into them, asset bubbles are getting worse, Bain says.

The chart that opened this post (click on it to enlarge) makes this point. The line represents world GDP growth. You can see why the GFC has been the worst thing to hit the global economy in decades.  

The worrying thing is if the private equity fund is right, too many financial assets are exactly what cause investors to recklessly plough their money into asset bubbles in the first place.

As long as financial assets keep growing, and investors keep doing what they’re doing, we haven’t seen the end of the economic turmoil that’s characterised the start of the twenty-first century.

1 note 

Puppies: The new indicator of prosperity?

Wherein Mateo continues his series on unlikely economic indicators.

Read More

The case for price gouging

Wherein Mateo uses Hurricane Sandy as a convenient example to return to Micro 1 (and shock and alienate his audience).

Trust Slate to be polemic. Their excellent economics blogger, Matthew Yglesias, might be fishing for comments with this article, but it’s not totally without merit.

To sum up his argument: as with all schemes designed to control the price of a good or service, no matter the validity of the intentions, it will fail, leading to over-consumption and shortages.

Read More

1 note 

What Disney just bought
Via: Michael Pannunzio on Facebook

What Disney just bought

Via: Michael Pannunzio on Facebook

2 notes 

Paying kids for their good grades?

In which Mateo makes his long-awaited (no sniggering at the back there) return from econo-sabbatical.


Paul Frijters, writing for Core Economics, asks one of the great small questions of our discipline: should parents monetarily incentivise (non-economists might use ‘pay’) their childrens’ academic performance?

The opening gambit is an eyebrow-raising one: economically speaking, says Frijters, this ought to be a ‘no-brainer’. Kids can’t grasp the true, long-run value of their education, so they require some short-term prodding to dedicate more to their studies. This is essentially a consequentalist argument: no matter the means, if the outcome is a desired one, then it’s all good, right?

There are interesting arguments offered by both sides. At the risk of greatly oversimplifying a nuanced and complicated debate, which has obvious implications for the type of parenting we as a society should encourage and the type of society we want to live in, I will consider the arguments of two figureheads, economist Gary Becker, and philosopher Michael Sandel. The former simply cannot understand why, in situations where markets could plausibly perform a more effective role than a stiff regulatory regime, they are not allowed to do so. The latter is, in my opinion, the most articulate (and popular) advocate for a society which places limits on where the market can reasonably tread.

Becker, as can be (with some difficulty) read in this post in support of a freer market for organs on the always-interesting blog he co-authors with Richard Posner, is in favour of the monetarisation of transactions which, in his view, would lead to greatly preferable outcomes for all. As with (his take on) the buying and selling of organs, paying children for attaining good grades is, presumably, a win-win. Parents can rest easy knowing their children are striving for the best grades they can get, while kids get some extra pocket money (because these are the sums we’re talking about).

Sandel, on the other hand, has forcefully expressed the opposite view. It is a view which he has aired in the first of the four 2009 Reith Lectures he delivered, as well as his recent book, What Money Can’t Buy. Markets, argues Sandel, are not morally neutral: their intrusion into what he deems inappropriate areas of our lives inspires not only an instinctive revulsion but is, he contends, morally troubling. There are some things money simply ought not to be able to buy.

Are childrens’ grades one of those things where the market should not be permitted to show its face? Does it risk crowding out the ‘right’ reasons for academic aspiration and success? Is there such a thing as a morally preferable course of action in this instance? Aren’t we actually just making parent and child alike better off?

One to chew on.

1 note 

On paper, the entire European Union has a single government interest rate, set by the European Central Bank. In reality, it hasn’t for years.
Lenders to struggling European countries have required higher bond yields (interest rates) in order to put their money with those governments. This is sensible, as many of which have at various times appeared on the verge of bankruptcy. But it also means that the countries in the eurozone that need money the most – Spain, Italy, Greece, Ireland and Portugal – find it most difficult to access funds.
Fixing this was the aim of the plan announced last night at the highly-anticipated monthly ECB meeting.

3 notes 

The Economist reports on a study which found believing in hell was a much better deterent to engaging in criminal activity than believing in heaven. 
Not surprising really. Studies have shown most humans are risk adverse.

The Economist reports on a study which found believing in hell was a much better deterent to engaging in criminal activity than believing in heaven. 

Not surprising really. Studies have shown most humans are risk adverse.

Making sports rankings fairer

Myriam on a proposal to make AFL rankings better match reality:

If you watch sport, what you want to see is a good contest. You want to see the best sides progress. But you also want them to keep playing fiercely, even if they’re ahead. You don’t want complacent teams: you want a good show.

In the Australian Football League, these principles are encouraged through the playoffs. The eight highest-ranked teams in a season go on to play each other. To help the best teams win, the top four have the chance to lose a game and progress, whereas the lowest-ranked of the eight do not. Also, home advantage is award to whichever team is highest ranked in the playoffs.

But the system which decides which eight teams make it into the playoffs could be improved, a La Trobe economist argues.

In 2010, Liam Lenton from La Trobe and Niven Winchester from the University of Otago published a paper arguing that giving bonus points to teams in the case of large margins of victory, or in the case of narrow losses, would give a better indication as to the relative ranking of the teams in the AFL. The final paper is behind a paywall, but its working draft is available here.

In the year it was published, the paper wouldn’t have had much effect on the ranking of the final eight. But this year, it would (see graph below). Allocating bonus points for large wins and narrow losses under the scheme proposed would see Collingwood would get bumped from fourth spot to seventh, while Geelong would just make it into the top four from its current sixth spot.

 

The paper proposed two bonus points for teams that win by more than 27 points, or those that lose by less than 26 points, in addition to the 4-2-0 points allocation for win-draw-loss. Each game, six points would be allocated, with the final two being split either between the winning or losing team, depending on the margin.

“In cases of games where the margin is around that five-goal mark . . . currently what you have is teams take their best players off the ground. They know the match is won with five to seven minutes left and they want to keep those players in cotton wool,” Lenton told The Australian Financial Review. “If there was something riding on it you could expect to see that team try and maintain that intensity for the last remaining minutes.”

Sports such as Super Rugby and World Cup Rugby already use bonus points. The paper says no sport which has introduced a bonus point system has had reason to revoke it.

HT: Australian Financial Review. Chart is from La Trobe Uni.

2 notes 

Australians support manufacturing protectionism

Myriam on why protectionism sucks:

Protectionism is bad because it makes everyone poorer.

And while you might think you’re happy being poorer if you get to help a factory worker keep their job, by helping your neighbour you’re hurting both the poorest in your society (those who can no longer afford manufactured goods) and the poorest in the world (who would have a manufacturing job paying wages several times higher than those they would get otherwise). 

All in all, protectionism for reasons of social equity has a lot of unintended consequences, which leads most economists to think it’s generally a bad idea.

But that consensus doesn’t seep down into the broader political discussion. New polling by Essential Research finds most support some form of protectionism for Australian manufacturers, with the most popular methods being partial nationalisation (joint ventures with government), and commitments on a personal and government level to buy Australia-made products. More than half (66%) support “protection from overseas competition” (which, despite the question asked, isn’t really a method of protection rather than its definition, but anyway). 

This isn’t really surprising. Free trade is one of those policies that do vast amounts of good for the world, that also go against people’s basic instincts. Free trade grows the economic pie (see: comparative advantage) when most people see the global economy as a zero-sum game. And anyway, the out-of-work manufacturing worker in front of you is a lot harder to ignore than the millions living in absolute poverty overseas. 

Nobel-prize-winning economist, NYT columnist and general leftie Paul Krugman wrote this excellent piece a few years back about what trade economics students need to know about international trade. He’s as relevant now as he was then. 

2 notes 

Economists, if they had their way, would eliminate inefficient taxes (like income and payroll taxes) and tax consumption instead. They’d also legalise things like marijuana. List to this great Planet Money episode to learn why.