Tag: economics

Long-time readers will recall that NAR Chief Economist has been my bitch for the last two years that I made existing home sale price predictions. So, you can probably understand that I was amused at the news that the basic NAR model badly wants revision:

Case-Shiller also released its quarterly index covering all homes in the country. It showed prices fell 3.9 percent in the fourth quarter and 4.1 percent for all of 2010. All of that may be the good news. The bad news is the Wall Street Journal reports that the National Association of Realtors may have been overstating existing home sale figures as far back as 2007.

“The group reported that there were 4.9 million sales of previously owned homes in 2010, down 5.7% from 5.2 million in 2009. But CoreLogic, a real-estate analytics firm based in Santa Ana, Calif., counted just 3.3 million homes sales last year, a drop of 10.8% from 3.7 million in 2009. CoreLogic says NAR could have overstated home sales by as much as 20%.

If the Realtors have overstated sales, the existing overhang of unsold homes is even greater than what’s been thought.

In determining annual sales numbers the Realtors have been using a model “that is benchmarked to the figures reported in the decennial U.S. Census. The model requires making certain assumptions for population growth and other measures in between the census surveys,” reports the WSJ.

The model may have overstated the number of sales “due to recent consolidation among multiple-listing services, which has resulted in those firms having wider coverage of housing markets. NAR’s tally could be distorted if the firms ‘are sending us more home sales because they have a larger coverage area, but without informing us that their reach has grown,’” said Lawrence Yun, who is the chief economist at NAR and the one keeping an eye on the model.

Needless to say, if they overstated the sales numbers, there is a very good chance that they overstated the average prices paid as well. Once more, it looks as if I was insufficiently pessimistic in RGD, positive GDP reports notwithstanding. Of course, now that we’ve brought up the subject of erroneous statistical reports….

The economic contraction isn’t over. It has still barely begun.

For Paul Samuelson told us so:

President Obama‘s budget, released Monday, was conceived as a blueprint for future spending, but it also paints the bleakest picture yet of the current fiscal year, which is on track for a record federal deficit and will see the government’s overall debt surpass the size of the total U.S. economy. Mr. Obama‘s budget projects that 2011 will see the biggest one-year debt jump in history, or nearly $2 trillion, to reach $15.476 trillion by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year. That would be 102.6 percent of GDP — the first time since World War II that dubious figure has been reached.

Neo-Keynesians such as Paul Krugman insist that the deficit isn’t a problem because of this line of argument, first presented by Paul Samuelson in his landmark 1948 textbook entitled “Economics”.

“There are also burdens involved in an internally held public debt like our present one, but the burdens of an internal debt are qualitatively and quantitatively different from those of an external debt. This is the first and most important lesson to be grasped, without which nobody can go far in understanding the economics of the public debt. The interest on an internal debt is paid by Americans to Americans; there is no direct loss of goods and services. When interest on the debt is paid out of taxation, there is no direct loss of disposable income; Paul receives what Peter loses, and sometimes – but only sometimes – Paul and Peter are one and the same person. . . . In the future, some of our grandchildren will be giving up goods and services to other grandchildren. That is the nub of the matter. The only way we can impose a direct burden on the future nation as a whole is by incurring an external debt or by passing along less capital equipment to posterity.

Of course, it is probably worth considering that the situation in 2011 is not exactly the same as the situation in 1948, as can be seen in the chart below.  Note the green line, in particular.

JH asks a Federal Reserve official about the decline in private borrowing:

I solicited advice from you quite a while ago on a debt deflation question to ask a Fed Reserve speaker at a work function, and as you predicted, he pretty much dismissed drawing any conclusions from the Fed Z1 report which showed that without government debt growth the US was in severe debt contraction. The speaker said the contraction was a temporary result of there not being enough good people or businesses worth investing in presently. On some level this may be true, but he still completely avoided discussing the implications of continued credit contraction to the overall economy.

It’s a pity JH wasn’t allowed a follow-up question, as the obvious one was as follows: how do you explain this “temporary result of there not being enough good people or businesses worth investing in presently” in light of the fact that a) there are more people in the USA than ever before, and b) the fact that there has NEVER been a comparable contraction in private credit in the post-war era.

The other question I would have liked to ask the Fed official is this. How long do you think government sector credit can continue to expand and prevent Z1 from falling if the household and financial sectors continue to decline?

Jed requests an explanation:

Vox, can you explain [that “not buying something is at least potentially an economic activity”]?

How is not playing baseball considered playing baseball when one is merely sitting in the stands? This only works from a socialistic standpoint which is exactly why Democrats saw no problem including it in their law.

First, the baseball analogy is a bad one. The logical error that Jed commits there is his assumption that economic activity = buying something. This is not only incorrect, since X!=not X, but indicates a failure to understand what economics is. This failure is further evidenced by the incoherent assertion that it “only works from a socialistic standpoint”, whereas the truth is that because economic concepts always work, socialism itself does not.

Now for the explanation. Recall the basic supply and demand curve. Since the demand curve is the expression of the buyers’ willingness to buy at various price points, it by definition takes into account the decisions of those who are actively choosing not to buy at a price above their buy point. They are engaging in exactly the same economic activity in not-buying that they are in buying, the only difference is that the price point happen to be above their action trigger.

This isn’t as confusing as it sounds at first. For example, no one has a hard time understanding that a woman has gone shopping even if she didn’t end up buying anything while she was out at the mall. This is why, in the introduction to RGD, I pointed out that Leonard Read’s famous story of the pencil only told half the story as “The story on the demand side is arguably even more amazing, as the myriad assignments of personal value for a pencil made by the millions of people who buy pencils and by the tens of millions who elect not to buy them are all factored into an incredibly massive but ever-changing computation that always manages to produce a definite price for every single transaction that takes place at millions of different points in the space-time continuum.”

This doesn’t mean that every non-purchase can be considered economic activity, only decisions to not make a possible purchase can. One has to be somewhere along the demand curve in order to qualify. Thus, a decision to not purchase U.S. health insurance by someone in Indonesia is not economic activity because the Indonesian is not a potential participant in that market. But the decision by individuals in Chicago or Raleigh to not purchase health insurance is economic activity because they are potential participants in the market since they would be interested in purchasing health insurance if the price fell low enough.

Now, none of this can be used to justify the Commerce Clause given the principle of non-infinity and the fact that it is supposed to be a specific exception to a restriction, not a free Federal do whatever the hell you want card. But the basic concept of the non-buyer as economic participant is a perfectly sound one.

The growing power of China and the decline of an indebted America is just one small aspect of the strong historical case against free trade:

Revalue your currency, we demand of the Chinese, stop running these trade surpluses at our expense, start practicing free trade, and abandon these mercantilist and protectionist policies. But why should they? Why should China abandon a trade policy that is working marvelously well for them, and adopt a trade policy that is failing dismally for us? Does that make sense?

Why should any nation emulate the U.S. trade policy of the Bush-Clinton-Bush era that has stripped us of a third of our manufacturing jobs and made us dependent on China and the world for the needs of our national life and the borrowed money to pay for them?

Why would China, seeking to make herself an independent and self-sufficient nation, adopt a policy that cost us our independence? And what are the Chinese doing in their ascendancy to first power on earth that we did not do in ours?

One of the interesting things that readily becomes apparent when reading Rothbard’s An Economic Perspective on the History of Economic Thought is that virtually everything the free traders – and I was once one of them – believe about economic history is wrong. They have various theoretical problems too, to be sure, but history provides an easier means of undermining the primary intellectual engine for totalitarian globalism than comparatively esoteric economic theory. Of course, the weakness of the free trade case is very easily seen in the way that they immediately retreat from their previous analogies and arguments as soon as their weaknesses are demonstrated.

The final NAR prices are in.  And while it wasn’t as close as 2008, it wasn’t too far off, especially since prices did plunge below $165,000 in February before bouncing back.

Paul Krugman inadvertantly reveals a glimpse into his reasoning process:

My wife and I were thinking of going out for an inexpensive dinner tonight. But John Boehner, the speaker of the House, says that no matter how cheap the meal may seem, it will cost thousands of dollars once you take our monthly mortgage payments into account. Wait a minute, you may say. How can our mortgage payments be a cost of going out to eat, when we’ll have to make the same payments even if we stay home? But Mr. Boehner is adamant: our mortgage is part of the cost of our meal, and to say otherwise is just a budget gimmick.

O.K., the speaker hasn’t actually weighed in on our plans for the evening. But he and his G.O.P. colleagues have lately been making exactly the nonsensical argument I’ve just described — not about tonight’s dinner, but about health care reform.

in 1997 Congress enacted a formula to determine Medicare payments to physicians. The formula was, however, flawed; it would lead to payments so low that doctors would stop accepting Medicare patients. Instead of changing the formula, however, Congress has consistently enacted one-year fixes. And Republicans claim that the estimated cost of future fixes, $208 billion over the next 10 years, should be considered a cost of health care reform.

But the same spending would still be necessary if we were to undo reform. So the G.O.P. argument here is exactly like claiming that my mortgage payments, which I’ll have to make no matter what we do tonight, are a cost of going out for dinner.

Krugman’s column is based upon three assertions. Number one, that the large divergence in the cost of a mortgage versus an inexpensive dinner is comparable to the cost of future fixes versus the total cost of health care reform. Let’s consider that one first. The average monthly mortgage payment is around $1,750. An inexpensive dinner for two is around $50. Krugman tells us the cost of fixing Medicare for 10 years is $208 billion. The CBO’s revised estimate for health care reform, which does NOT include the Medicare fix, is $1,055 billion. (The Republicans say that the total will be $2,600 billion, but we’ll go with Krugman’s favored estimate just to be fair to him.)

So, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Krugman is claiming that 1750/50=208/1055, or that 35=0.197. And you wonder why the economy is in such dire straits…

Number two, Krugman is assuming that the Medicare fix is as inevitable as a mortgage payment. But this quite clearly isn’t the case; whereas not making the mortgage payment entails losing the house, (or at least it did back when mortgage banks held legitimate title to houses and were actually willing to foreclose on properties and write off the bad loan), the possibility that doctors might elect not to see Medicare patients hardly makes increasing Medicare payments a necessity. There are other options available that don’t require spending the money, which is not the case when it comes to making mortgage payments.

Number three, Krugman declares that “the modern G.O.P. has been taken over by an ideology in which the suffering of the unfortunate isn’t a proper concern of government, and alleviating that suffering at taxpayer expense is immoral, never mind how little it costs.” But if this were actually the case, then the modern G.O.P. would simply solve the budgetary problem by not spending the $208 billion instead of insisting that it be counted as part of the cost of health care reform. Even if we ignore the fact that this is the fiscally responsible decision as well as the Constitutionally correct thing to do since Medicare is not a legitimate function of the federal government, Krugman’s failure to realize that the Republicans are not advocating this only underlines his complete logical incoherence.

Far be it from me to defend the Congressional Republicans, but for all their ill-conceived enthusiasm for illegitimate military adventures, a war on logic is not one in which they are presently engaged. It is instead Paul Krugman who is waging a public one-man crusade against it.

Mike Shedlock borrows future Fed chairwoman Janet Yellen’s economic model to extrapolate the future:

Here is a summary of what will happen based on projections of Yellen’s model:

The Fed created 3.5 million jobs.
The Fed bloated its balance sheet by $2.3 trillion to do so.
It takes $657,142.86 in balance sheet additions to create a single job.
It takes the same $2.3 trillion to lower the unemployment rate .5%
The Fed’s balance sheet will reach $18.4 trillion by the time the unemployment rate drops to 5.9%
It will take another 3.5 years to get to a “full employment” situation with an unemployment rate of 5.9%.

If Yellen’s model holds, Nate’s hyperinflationary scenario would certainly appear to be in full E-F-F-E-C-T. Of course, at that point, the Fed would own literally the entire U.S. economy, Federal debt would increase from $8 trillion to $22 trillion and the Employment-Population ratio would fall to 52.3 percent. So, I’m just going to go out on a limb and predict that it will not, in fact, hold.

Doesn’t it just fill you with confidence that the people who hold such power over the economy and your own economic well-being are so unspeakably competent?