Housing Bubble and a dishonest political class---birds of a feather or not connected at all---You decide, I am too tired...

    Homeownership and the Housing Bubble---Is there a correlation?...The graph below shows the Consumer Price Index (Dark Red Line, right scale), the housing price index (pulled from within the CPI--Bright Red Line, right scale) and the Homeownership Rate in the US since 1990 (Blue Line, left scale). For the purposes of this graph, the author (Carpe Diem) used 1990 as the base year (CPI and Housing Index =100).  A housing index high of approx. 225 in 2007 means that housing prices increased 125% over 20 years (225 minus 100= 125).  Over the SAME period prices in general, as measured by the CPI, increased 50% (approx 150 minus 100= 50).  

Source: Carpe Diem


    The layman's definition for inflation is "too much money chasing too few goods".  The demand for housing outpaced the available stock of new and used houses fueled by "easy money" from the Federal Reserve and multiplied by the creative financial instruments developed by Wall Street firms.  All designed to get more money into the hands of more people to buy more housing.
    Three simple observations can be made about the data: (1) homeownership rates increased dramatically since 1995 (a VERY steep increase year over year after 1995), (2) lagging behind, yet increasing at an increasing rate and keeping pace with homeownership rates, is the price of housing in general and (3) while prices as measure by the whole CPI have increased, they have increased at a modest rate over time.
    There have been a myriad of reasons hypothesized for the "bubble" in the housing market which contributed to the meltdown in the banking/financial markets. I believe history will be a much better judge as time passes and more objectivity is inserted into the analysis than there is presently.   However, the President AND Congress are responsible for over-sight in these matters. One cannot underestimate the power these two entities exert over the process. This letter sent to Pres. Bush in 2004 by members of Congress provides some insight into the thinking at the time. There seems to be a suggestion that there is a favorable trade-off between "safety and soundness" of the financial system and "affordable housing".  Please read the whole letter but here is the operable paragraph: (note: GSE are "Government Sponsored Entities" such as "Fannie Mae" and "Freddie Mac".  They hold a majority of mortgages in the US and are implicitly guaranteed by the Federal Govt.--this is a whole other blog entry).

"...We write as members of the House of Representatives who continually press the GSEs to do more in affordable housing. Until recently, we have been disappointed that the Administration has not been more supportive of our efforts to press the GSEs to do more. We have been concerned that the Administration's legislative proposal regarding the GSEs would weaken affordable housing perfonnance by the GSEs, by emphasizing only safety and soundness. While the GSEs' affordable housing mission is not in any way incompatible with their safety and soundness, an exclusive focus on safety and soundness is likely to come, in practice, at the expense of affordable housing....""

There are many parties to blame in the meltdown and I don't blame politicians exclusively, but for the political class to deny any culpability, as some of the signatories have claimed in public forums, is less than disingenuous and borders on dishonesty...I will let you make the call there...

White House to NOT install Solar Panels---My opinion--INSTALL THEM and ignore the critics!!

     I believe solar energy is going to be a vital component to servicing our current and future energy needs and will contribute significantly to a much needed positive Aggregate Supply shock.   By  a positive Aggregate Supply shock, I mean the advancements in solar will be so significant that widespread adoption will across the board decrease the cost of producing for producers--decreasing the cost of producing provides an incentive to produce more.  Produce more goods and more workers will be needed for the production of those goods (so says the economic logic).  Producing more goods then promotes spinoff subsitute and complementary goods--so on and so forth--we are off to the production races...That is REAL economic growth! The tangible and intangible residual benefits are a cleaner environment (a nod to the Lefties) AND less dependence on countries that rely on oil as its primary export (a nod to the Righties).  BOTH ideologies have a stake in this fight and and I don't understand (well actually I do understand) why the resistance from the Right and the timidity from the Left. 
   I don't get the Administrations decision to not install solar panels at/on the White House (Click HERE for article).  Seems a fear of not wanting to invite comparisons to the Carter Administrations has driven the decision, if not in its totality then at least partially.  Are we NOT past that yet? Considering that $80 billion , yes $80 billion, has been allocated in various forms of economic stimulus to renewable energy research, development and actual installation, seems it would be EXCELLENT leadership to outfit the White House with solar technology.  Most Americans are committed to the notion of developing alternative energy sources.  The use of the technology is widespread enough that I don't believe the average American would look askance at it.  I say install them!! What do you think?  Install the solar panels or not?  You have heard my spiel, let me hear your thoughts...

Is healtcare expensive because YOU don't pay enough of the price? I am just the messanger...

If someone else (lets call them a "third party") is paying a portion of the purchase price for something you need/want do you care about how much the total purchase price is? Do you care even less if this third party pays a continually larger portion and you pay a continually smaller portion?  The graph below shows overtime the relationship between what individuals pay at the point of service for health care  relative to what third parties pay for the service.  Prices convey a lot of information but when they become obfuscated by time and distance between the contracting parties, then price distortions tend to set in.   

Source: Carpe Diem

 I can use myself as an example. I have had a series of steroid injections in my lower back for pain.  It required outpatient services, anaesthesia, etc.  I paid my minimal co-pay and the insurance company was billed for the rest. Although I teach economics and know better, I had no incentive to find out how much the total bill came to.  Didn't need to.  The hospital and I were the original contracting parties and I paid the required "price".  Now the bill becomes separated from me by time and distance and the "third parties" now negotiate the price.  Local knowledge starts to dissipate, except for the  hospital that is now contracting with far-off (in time and distance) insurance companies. If I had been a medicare patient, then the third party would have been the Federal Government.  I am not suggesting this is the whole problem with health care costs, but it is a rather large slice.  It is not talked about much in the media, so I hope this helps you to understand another piece of the puzzle in the debate a little more...

"Buy one, Get One Free" Or "Half-Off"--I can't decide which is better!!

It is difficult to not be manipulated by clever marketing, or unclever marketing for that matter (You believe when an item is advertised as "half-off" that it was ACTUALLY sold at the original price at one time, don't you??).  I can explain this to students all day long, but I am sure when they go to the store they are lured by the "sale".  Sellers engage in a concept called relative pricing.  If I have an item I want to sell for $50 and advertise it at that price I will NOT get the same response if I instead put a "manufacturers suggested retail price" of $100.00 and offered it for sale at $50.00, half-off.   Same price outcome but not the same sales response.  the first instance I did not give you are basis for comparison, the second I did...

""Behaviorial economist Richard Thaler has noted that consumers are really bad at making decisions about value and constantly need "reference prices" for comparison. A dress costs $80. Is that too much? Not if it's marked down 50 percent from $160. The trick is, that artificial $160 reference price may not really exist.""How Apple plays the pricing game

 I can cleverly do this with multiple items that are similar but steer you to the one I really want you to buy. Apple (and others) do this very well, but Apple may be the best at this "relative pricing" game...

""...Decoys explain why Apple often sells each gadget in a pricing series, such as the new iPod Touch's $229, $299, and $399 price points for different storage capacities. You may gladly spend $229 to get a hot media player, thinking it's a deal compared with the highest-priced version and not blink that you could instead buy an iPhone 4 at the lower price of $199 with more features.
The $399 "decoy" has clouded your judgment. Apple wins the best of both worlds - stoking demand for products that look like bargains and for all the decoys it sells at much higher prices. Yes, some people will spend $399 for a music player with slightly better technology - and Apple makes even fatter margins...."

If after reading this you still get fooled, well, at LEAST you are an educated fool...Ummm, that did not come our right, did it??? :)

How compromise choices can make you money

Need a current event article for Economics? This one is short and discusses more concepts than any other article I have seen recently...it a carpet bombing of econ concepts!!

Short article chocked full of supply and demand problems thoughout a supply chain, illustrates structural unemployment, changes in the labor force for trucking, the pitfalls of extending unemployment benefits...seems unending...if you need a source for AP Economics or a college economics class, this is one stop shopping...
Shortages of trucks and truck drivers stall product deliveries

Nice graph showing the Natural Rate of Unemployment vs Actual Unemployment overtime...Yes, it IS important!!

Below you will find a graph showing the Natural Rate of Unemployment vs the Actual Rate of Unemployment over time.  The Natural Rate of Unemployment (aka NRU) is the sum or Frictional Unemployment and Structural Unemployment the economy.  These two categories of unemployment are always present and the goal is to minimize them, especially Structural.  Structural unemployment is serious and poses many problems. Workers are unemployed because their skills have been rendered obsolete, primarily through advancements in technology and production process.  These workers tend to be unemployed for longer periods of time and need to undergo re-training to acquire relevant skills.  It is feared that the Natural Rate of Unemployment is going to increase because of an increase in the number of workers who fall into the Structurally unemployed category.  This could describe between 2 and 3 million people!! How do we solve THAT problem?? Ideas?

Cleveland Federal Reserve

Are Americans selfish and not charitable? Nice graphic enclosed that shows who is naughty and who is nice

A bit of good news, but I did not have to be told this...Americans ARE generous...(Click on image to make bigger OR click on link to go to source).
Americans Are More Caring Than 99% Of The World

Here's a rare bit of information to make Americans feel good about themselves.
A UK-based think tank rated Americans fifth in the world in a composite index of charitable activity, including giving money, volunteering, and helping a stranger. Only Canada, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand ranked higher.  Charity-wise, Americans do better than the British, French, Chinese, and the rest of the world.

Liar, Liar, pants on fire! Well, not on fire, but they may be larger than they appear...

I KNEW IT!!  Not all pant sizes are created equal.  The graphic below shows the variations in ACTUAL size of select pants relative to the size stated on the label.  The label in the pants says "36 inches". However, when measured you can see the ACTUAL size of the pants is not as advertised.  The pants are considerably larger, in some cases.  Is this dishonest advertising OR do we WANT to be duped in this manner? Just to be safe, I am NOT going to measure MY pants...I am SURE they are really "38's" as labeled!
Are Your Pants Lying to You? An Investigation

POP! That is sound of the"bubble" about to burst in the market for Higher Education...Can colleges escape the laws of supply and demand? I think not...

There has been lots of talk about how to control over-spending in the housing and healthcare markets.  Major legislation has been passed and political capital has been expend to address these problems. How about the potential "bubble" in higher education? Is this issue important to college students?? Well, yes.  Has it been seriously addressed? Well, you decide for yourself as you write checks to pay for your college expenses...

The first graph pulls out the price of College Tuition  (Dark Red Line) over time and compares it to prices as a whole (CPI-Blue Line) and the price of housing ( Bright Red Line)

The second graph pulls out the price of College Textbooks (Blue Line) and compare it to prices as a whole (CPI-Dark Red Line) and the price of housing (Bright Red Line)

Graphs courtesy of Carpe Diem

Ok, the deep fried thing at the State Fair has gone one product too far....

I don't drink at all, so this does not affect me personally. The creativity and trial and error that stems from this innovation is what fascinates me.  The economics is interesting too: is this food item the result of demand-side or supply-side economics?  Did people demand this good and the entrepreneur then go about producing it, or did the entrepreneur anticipate that if he/she supplied it people would want it? Sorry, this is how I think about everything---the "economic way of thinking" controls my life!! :)

Texas State Fair's culinary contenders fry everything from Pop-Tarts to beer

""If Big Tex looks a little glassy-eyed this fall, blame it on the Fried Beer. Or the Deep Fried Frozen Margarita.
Booze is generating a buzz for the State Fair of Texas, as fried-alcohol dishes made the list of top new fair foods announced Wednesday.
Eight imaginative contenders are vying for the Sixth Annual Big Tex Choice Awards, with the winners getting plenty of publicity – and long lines of eager fairgoers willing to gobble up the fried goodness.
But have your ID handy for the Fried Beer and Deep Fried Frozen Margarita – you must be 21 or older to partake....Fried Beer is a beer-filled pretzel-like dough pocket that's shaped like ravioli. Take a bite and the beer pours out.""

Happy Capital Day!! Opps, I mean Labor Day...or do I?

On Labor Day we celebrate the contribution of the worker to the production of goods and services.  Good enough and well deserved.  However, why don't we have a day for what really allows workers to be more productive AND work less with their physical bodies and more with higher level thinking skills?...(HT: Division of Labour)

""Any good economist will tell you that as complementary factors of production, labor and capital are not only indispensable but hugely dependent upon each other as well.
Capital without labor means machines with no operators, or financial resources without the manpower to invest in. Labor without capital looks like Haiti or North Korea: plenty of people working but doing it with sticks instead of bulldozers, or starting a small enterprise with pocket change instead of a bank loan.
There may be no place in the world where there’s a shortage of labor but every inch of the planet is short of capital. There is no worker who couldn’t become more productive and better himself and society in the process if he had a more powerful labor-saving machine or a little more venture capital behind him. Capital can refer to either the tools of production or the funds that finance them. It ought to be abundantly clear that the vast improvement in standards of living over the past century is not explained by physical labor (we actually do less of that), but rather to the application of capital.
This is not class warfare. I’m not “taking sides” between labor and capital. I don’t see them as natural antagonists in spite of some people’s attempts to make them so. Don’t think of capital as something possessed and deployed only by bankers, the college-educated, the rich, or the elite. We workers of all income levels are “capital-ists” too—every time we save and invest, buy a share of stock, fix a machine, or start a business.
And yet, we have a “Labor Day” in America but not a “Capital Day.”
Like most Americans, I’ve traditionally celebrated labor on Labor Day weekend—not organized labor or compulsory labor unions, mind you, but the noble act of physical labor to produce the things we want and need. Nothing at all wrong about that! But I’m starting a new tradition this year that may never catch on and it doesn’t matter to me if it doesn’t. I’m doing it anyway: In odd-numbered years, I will celebrate Labor Day on the first Monday of September. In even-numbered years, I will celebrate what I’ll call Capital Day. This makes Monday, September 6, 2010 my first official Capital Day.
This weekend, I’ll be thinking about the remarkable achievements of inventors of labor-saving devices, the risk-taking venture capitalists who put their own money (not your tax money) on the line and the fact that nobody in America has to dig a ditch with a spoon or cut his lawn with a knife.
Happy Capital Day, America!""

Do the carpets in Vegas Casinos camoflage stains OR poker chips? I got to know!!

Apparently there is money to be made in carpets in Las Vegas...Are the carpets in casinos for covering up stains OR for camoflaging chips that have fallen from the possession of the gamblers? OR perhaps it is both!

HT: Marginal Revolution

Economics underpins ALL conflict---Food Inflation causes rioting--is this just the beginning?

    The subject of the article below is something we discussed in class today.  Increasing food prices, while a nuisance, are easily absorbed by rich countries but disproportionately effect poor people in poor countries in a negative way.  It emphasizes the point of my lecture:  If you look at the history of conflict/revolution/war and strip away all the rhetoric, you will find an economic problem as the root cause.  In this case, it is rising wheat prices.  Wheat is a vital input into making many basic food staples.  While rising food prices may not be an ultimate reason for over-throwing a government, it may certainly be the catalyst.
Seven die in Mozambique food rioting

""The first food riots since the 2007-08 crisis have left seven people dead and at least 280 injured in Maputo, the Mozambican government said on Thursday. The unrest in the country’s capital followed the government’s decision to raise bread prices by 30 per cent.  The riots have prompted concerns that food protests could spread across poor African countries that rely heavily on agricultural commodities imports. Discontent about rising prices for staples has already emerged in countries from Egypt to South Africa.
Further violence in Maputo was possible, he added""

Another graph showing world meat prices relative to food prices world-wide:

"Priming the Pump"---this ain't plumbing but we are trying to unclog the stagnant economy---see multipliers enclosed.

  A nice graphic  below showing the multiplier effects of various fiscal policies Congress could implement to move the economy forward.  In a recession, Congress would want to decrease taxes and/or increase direct government spending.  The goal is to increase the demand for goods and services so businesses will produce more goods and services. In turn businesses would need to hire additional workers to produce these goods and services (or at the minimum, not layoff people or close it doors).  This would serve to stabilize the economy until private demand returns and government could back off.   In theory and in practice (I say that with reservations), each dollar spent by the government yields MORE in terms of  goods/services purchased than a decrease in taxes because in the very first round of spending the government does not save a portion of the dollar and people tend to save a portion of the tax cut.  This is the foundation of John Maynard Keynes "Multiplier Effect" of a dollar spent by government versus by "people".  According to this theory, if you want to jump-start an economy, or as Keynes said "prime the pump", then government spending a dollar trumps people spending that same dollar.  The extent of the multiplier effect is STILL up for much debate in economics, but depending on the policy, it seems to bear out.  Judge for yourself...
Tax Cuts That Make a Difference

""...But the most effective tax cut for putting people back to work quickly is one that businesses and households get only if they spend money. Last year’s cash-for-clunkers program was an example. So was a recent bipartisan tax credit for businesses that hired workers who had been unemployed for months. Perhaps the broadest example is a temporary cut in the payroll tax for businesses, which reduces the cost of employing people.

Any of these steps would increase the budget deficit, obviously. But relative to the multitrillion-dollar, Medicare-driven, long-term deficit, a temporary tax cut costing a couple of hundred billion dollars isn’t significant. The more pressing problem today, by far, is the weak economy...""

 

Keep your externalities Positive---"Metering Out" benefits...

It is usually easier to find examples of negative externalities than positive ones.  Positive externalities are benefits accrued by society from a use of a good BUT the market does not provide enough of this good.  Government can play a role in promoting the production of this good by offering a subsidy to either produce it or for the consumer to purchase more of it (increase the quantity demanded and the quantity supplied will increase--it still induces production):

""More than 100,000 central Ohio households are on the leading edge of energy technology, having received high-tech electricity meters with the help of federal aid, a project an Obama administration official praised yesterday.As soon as October, the customers will be able to use an AEP website to track their electricity usage the previous day. Future versions of the meters might allow for real-time tracking.  Electric utilities eventually might use the technology to offer different prices for power, depending on the time of day, which would encourage customers to use less power during times of high demand. This kind of change to pricing would require approval by state regulators.  As Chu sees it, the meters' main asset is the way they provide information that can be used to cut power bills.  "First and foremost, it's about saving money," he said."" (Source: Environmental Economics)