@CFigueres seriously mistaken on carbon emissions and global poverty
13 Apr 2016 Leave a comment
in applied welfare economics, development economics, economic history, energy economics, environmental economics, global warming, growth disasters, growth miracles, Public Choice, rentseeking Tags: climate alarmism, extreme poverty, global poverty, The Great Escape
Picking winners and @stevenljoyce’s repayable grants to 11 more tech start-ups @JordNZ
13 Apr 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, entrepreneurship, industrial organisation, politics - New Zealand, Public Choice, rentseeking, survivor principle Tags: corporate welfare, creative destruction, entrepreneurial alertness, Hollywood economics, industry policy, picking losers, picking winners
Minister for Science and Innovation Steven Joyce picked a few more winners today. Eleven more start-up technology companies are to be funded $450,000 each in repayable loans to commercialise their technology. The loans are from Callaghan Innovation’s incubator network.
To cut a long diatribe short, I find these sums of money rather piddling. I have encountered this corporate welfare program before at a presentation.
My reaction then as is now: by handing out such small grants, some will succeed, some will fail. Importantly, there will never be one big disaster to bring the whole show down. There is political safety in diversification.
This is not the case with, for example, film subsidies. If Sir Peter Jackson and others finally produce a box office bomb, it will be all too glaring that the taxpayers backed a Hollywood loser with hundreds of millions of dollars. $500 million in subsidies in the case of Avatar.
By peppering small sums of money across the economy, there is no similar risk from this repayable grant scheme for the commercialisation of products.
Deposit insurance
11 Apr 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, business cycles, economic history, economics, economics of regulation, global financial crisis (GFC), macroeconomics, monetary economics, Public Choice, rentseeking Tags: bank runs, banking crises, banking panics, deposit insurance, Thomas Sargent
Many of the key issues about what modern macroeconomics has to say on global financial crises and deposit insurance are discussed in a 2010 interview with Thomas Sargent
Sargent said that two polar models of bank crises and what government lender-of-last-resort and deposit insurance do to arrest or promote them were used to understand the GFC. They are polar models because:
- in the Diamond-Dybvig and Bryant model of banking runs, deposit insurance and other bailouts are purely a good thing stopping panic-induced bank runs from ever starting; and
- in the Kareken and Wallace model, deposit insurance by governments and the lender-of-last-resort function of a central bank are purely a bad thing because moral hazard encourages risk taking unless there is regulation or there is proper surveillance and accurate risk-based pricing of the deposit insurance.
In the Diamond-Dybvig and Bryant model, if there is government-supplied deposit insurance, people do not initiate bank runs because they trust their deposits to be safe. There is no cost to the government for offering the deposit insurance because there are no bank runs! A major free lunch.
Tom Sargent considers that the Bryant-Diamond-Dybvig model has been very influential, in general, and among policy makers in 2008, in particular.
Governments saw Bryant-Diamond-Dybvig bank runs everywhere. The logic of this model persuaded many governments that if they could arrest the actual or potential runs by convincing creditors that their loans were insured, that could be done at little or no eventual cost to taxpayers.
In 2008, the Australian and New Zealand governments announced emergency bank deposit insurance guarantees. In Bryant-Diamond-Dybvig style bank panics, these guarantees ward off the bank run and thus should cost nothing fiscally because the deposit insurance is not called upon. These guarantees and lender of last resort function were seen as key stabilising measures. These guarantees were called upon in NZ to the tune of $2 billion.
- 1. The Diamond-Dybvig and Bryant model makes you sensitive to runs and optimistic about the ability of deposit insurance to cure them.
- The Kareken and Wallace model’s prediction is that if a government sets up deposit insurance and doesn’t regulate bank portfolios to prevent them from taking too much risk, the government is setting the stage for a financial crisis.
- The Kareken-Wallace model makes you very cautious about lender-of-last-resort facilities and very sensitive to the risk-taking activities of banks.
Kareken and Wallace called for much higher capital reserves for banks and more regulation to avoid future crises. This is not a new idea.
Sam Peltzman in the mid-1960s found that U.S. banks in the 1930s halved their capital ratios after the introduction of federal deposit insurance. FDR was initially opposed to deposit insurance because it would encourage greater risk taking by banks.
Late on Friday afternoon, Stuff posted an op-ed piece calling for the introduction of a (funded) deposit insurance scheme in New Zealand. It was written by Geof Mortlock, a former colleague of mine at the Reserve Bank, who has spent most of his career on banking risk issues, including having been heavily involved in the handling of the failure, and resulting statutory management, of DFC.
As the IMF recently reported, all European countries (advanced or emerging) and all advanced economies have deposit insurance, with the exception of San Marino, Israel and New Zealand. An increasing number of people have been calling for our politicians to rethink New Zealand’s stance in opposition to deposit insurance. I wrote about the issue myself just a couple of months ago, in response to some new material from the Reserve Bank which continues to oppose deposit insurance.
Different people emphasise different arguments in making the case for New Zealand to…
View original post 1,963 more words
@JulieAnneGenter tax havens underwrite The Great Escape from extreme poverty in developing countries
08 Apr 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, constitutional political economy, development economics, economic history, economics of bureaucracy, economics of crime, growth disasters, growth miracles, International law, law and economics, property rights, rentseeking
Tax havens and offshore financial centres are vital to the economic development of poor countries. There are plenty of countries, poor countries, where the ability to move funds offshore is fundamental to successful investment. That is missed in the reporting of the Panama Papers:
Consider the big names that have shown up so far on the list. With the notable exception of Iceland, these are not countries I would describe as “capitalist”: Russia, Pakistan, Iraq, Ukraine, Egypt. They’re countries where kleptocratic government officials amass money not through commerce, but through quasi-legal extortion, or siphoning off the till. This is an activity that has gone on long before capitalism, and probably before there was money.
Tax havens and offshore financial centres offer a way in which entrepreneurs can make an honest investment, secure a return and put it aside safely from the reach of the minister’s cousin who wants to muscle in once the business succeeded.
A major problem in poor countries is short time horizons for investment. Entrepreneurs must make their money quickly.
Many years ago there is a survey of entrepreneurs in Russia and Poland. It was in the early 1990s. Each was asked whether an investment project that doubled their money in two years was worth the risk. The Russian entrepreneurs mostly said no, the Polish entrepreneur said yes.
So insecure are the returns from investment in Russia at that time that the phenomenal returns were required before an investment was made. They would only invest if they could double the money in two years.
Many years ago, Mancur Olson wrote an insightful book about prosperity and dictatorships. He introduced the concept of rights intensive production.
As countries become more and more developed, investment horizons lengthen and depends more and more upon the enforcement of contract and property rights in a tolerably honest way.
Instead of being the first entrepreneur to introduce the most basic technologies and profit handsomely, entrepreneurs are introducing a product upgrade or new product that is a minor improvement on current offerings. Such investments will take time to pay off.
In many developing countries, China as an example, property rights are insecure. One way to secure your investment is to take the proceeds offshore to a tax haven. If everything goes wrong, at least you got some nest egg overseas.
As many developing countries have corrupt politicians and dishonest courts, the way to secure gains from honest investments is to move some of the profits offshore. That is why tax havens are essential to poor countries growing richer.
One of the sources of Hong Kong prosperity was investors would deal with a Hong Kong-based company with the requisite political and economic links to China. They could enforce their contracts in China against their Hong Kong assets because the contract was based in Hong Kong under British law.
If the local legal system is inadequate, entrepreneurs well look overseas for mechanisms to force contracts and secure their returns on investments against confiscation.
@BernieSanders @realdonaldtrump want to reverse The Great Escape in developing countries
07 Apr 2016 Leave a comment
in applied welfare economics, development economics, economic history, growth disasters, growth miracles, industrial organisation, international economics, politics - USA, Public Choice, rentseeking, survivor principle Tags: absolute poverty, extreme poverty, tariffs, The Great Escape, trade agreements, trade liberalisation
Source: TRANSCRIPT: Bernie Sanders meets with News Editorial Board – NY Daily News.
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3854986/UN-report-poverty.0.png)
Source: If you’re poor in another country, this is the scariest thing Bernie Sanders has said – Vox.
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6104377/Screen%20Shot%202016-02-25%20at%2011.48.27%20AM.png)
Source: If you’re poor in another country, this is the scariest thing Bernie Sanders has said – Vox.
.
Bruce Yandle on Bootleggers & Baptists
06 Apr 2016 Leave a comment
in Public Choice, rentseeking Tags: bootleggers and baptists
Political bias, free trade and @berniesanders @realdonaldtrump
31 Mar 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, applied welfare economics, economics of media and culture, industrial organisation, international economics, politics - USA, Public Choice, public economics, rentseeking Tags: 2016 presidential election, antiforeign bias, antimarket bias, makework bias, pessimism bias, rational irrationality
The explosion of lead in the saddlebags of trade agreements @KennedyGraham @DavidShearerMP #TPPANoWay
16 Mar 2016 Leave a comment
in economics of bureaucracy, international economic law, international economics, law and economics, politics - New Zealand, property rights, Public Choice, rentseeking Tags: crony capitalism, customs unions, free trade agreements, international investment law, investor state dispute settlement, preferential trading agreements
Rothbard on Conspiracy Theory
16 Mar 2016 Leave a comment
in Austrian economics, economics, Public Choice, rentseeking Tags: conspiracy theories, interest group capture, special interests
@toddmcclaymp #MFAT hasn’t heard of trade diversion? @DavidShearerMP #TPPANoWay @KennedyGraham
15 Mar 2016 Leave a comment
in economics of bureaucracy, international economics, politics - New Zealand, Public Choice, rentseeking Tags: customs unions, free trade agreements, preferential trading agreements, TPPA, trade creation, trade diversion
Trade diversion occurs when preferential trading agreements cause imports to shift from low cost countries to higher cost countries. Rather than gaining tariff revenue from inexpensive imports from world markets, a country may import expensive products from member countries but not gain any tariff revenue. An example of trade diversion is when Britain closed its doors to New Zealand agricultural exports after joining the common market.
Preferential trading agreements are trade agreements between countries in which they lower tariffs for each other but not for the rest of the world. The mass media mislabel them free trade agreements.
Under trade diversion, the partner country benefits from this change as an exporter, but the importing country loses due to this higher cost, as does the third country whose exports fall.
The loss to the importing country is not visible to consumers, who find the higher-cost product cheaper due to the absence of tariff. The country as a whole loses, with that loss being lost tariff revenue – lost to cover the cost of the higher cost imports from a member of the new preferential trading agreement.
It does not take much trade diversion to make a preferential trading agreement welfare reducing because of this switch to high cost producers.
The New Zealand Minister of Trade and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade did not discuss this major risk even from the simplest preferential trading agreement in recent policy analysis of the TPPA as my Official Information Act request has revealed. The term trade version does not appear in any of their analysis.
Adherents of the natural trading partner hypothesis argue that preferential trade agreements are more likely to improve welfare if participating countries already trade disproportionately with each other. Opponents of the hypothesis claim that the opposite is true: welfare gains are likely to be greater if participating countries trade less with each other. The powerful critique by Bhagwati and Panagariya (1996) is now widely accepted and one hears little justification of on preferential trading agreements on the grounds of the natural trading partners hypothesis
Dodging the #Trump Bullet: @zingales (2011) on @realdonaldtrump’s previous run for president
14 Mar 2016 Leave a comment
in economics of media and culture, politics - USA, Public Choice, rentseeking
Read what Zingales wrote five years ago on City Journal that was part of what was cut out of his book “A Capitalism for the People” because Donald Trump running seriously for president was never supposed to happen.
Source: Dodging the Trump Bullet | City Journal.
Zingales is no kinder in his recent op-ed recalling the lost book chapter, which is paywalled.
An Economic Approach to School Integration: Public Choice with Tie-ins
12 Mar 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, constitutional political economy, discrimination, economics of education, economics of media and culture, rentseeking
Thomas Borcherding “An Economic Approach to School Integration: Public Choice with Tie-ins.” Public Choice, 1977, argues that a reason for racial or ethnic discrimination in the public sector is politics encourages the coercive transfer of income from the racial, religious or ethnic group to those with more political influence.
Race can be used as a means of organizing coalitions to lobby for fiscal and economic discrimination in favour of even a previously unprejudiced group.
Preferences of each group to locate in a common geography and the severe control over entry or exit from the group that such things as skin colour, language, caste, and religious dogma impose make the organization of racial or ethnic coalitions by political entrepreneurs fairly cheap and minimises free riding and defection.
Prejudice may reinforce the solidarity of each group and help to monitor via custom, mores, and folkways the behavior of those that would attempt to bring persons of other groups into the former coalition. Further, prejudice may also serve as a device to rationalize exploitation of another group by fiscal or other means.
Borcherding argues that integration, racial balancing, quotas, and busing of school children take on a new logic when income transfers can be tied to fairly immutable characteristics such as race.
Mixing of children by race reduces the ability of a white dominated school board to differentially favour its own partisans’ children and to discriminate against those of blacks.
This paper anticipated Becker’s point that the competition among pressure groups for political influence for looks for lower cost ways of redistributing wealth so as to as much as possible limits the largess as much as possible to the pressure groups that lobby for it and their allies.
Recent Comments