What of lasting value have we built in response to the Great Recession?


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Missing ROGER WILLIAMS PARKIt took too long, but eventually, after the election of FDR, the United States got around to actually doing something about the Great Depression. The Works Progress (or Work Projects) Administration (W.P.A.) started putting Americans back to work, Keynesian style, in 1935. Economists may argue about the efficacy of stimulus programs, but one benefit cannot be argued:

The W.P.A. built sidewalks, parks and public buildings that I, and countless others, still use everyday. I enjoy the safety of not walking in the street and a weekly farmer’s market at a nearby park because from 1935 to 1941, the United States did not just pay people to work, it invested in our infrastructure.

Most of the work done by the W.P.A. is adorned with simple and elegant plaques. The plaques were built to endure, and they have. These beautifully designed monuments to a time when the United States was smarter and less beholden to crank economic theories based on greed and the punishment of the poor are all around us, 80 years later. We all reap the benefits of this investment. I foresee enjoying these parks, walkways and other amenities long into my senior dotage, thanks to investments made 30 years before I was born.

Has anything of similar value come out of our recent Great Recession? Where are the new bridges and bike paths, green energy systems and smart grids, refurbished parks and improved public facilities? Where is the legislation to prevent future catastrophes? Where are the criminal prosecutions for economic malfeasance?

They don’t exist. Not only did we learn nothing from the Great Recession, we’ve forgotten everything we learned from the Great Depression.

Below is a collection of W.P.A. plaques I’ve photographed in and around Providence. I hesitate to say exactly where I found these plaques, because of the picture above, taken in Roger Williams Park, where many of the roads, bridges and sidewalks were built by the W.P.A. from 1935-1940. The picture shows a piece of sidewalk in the park where a W.P.A. plaque has been forcibly removed, most likely stolen by someone hoping to make a few dollars from a scrap metal dealer.

That our most vulnerable populations finance themselves through the theft and sale of scrap metal serves as a demonstration that our nation not only continues failing to properly invest in the future, we don’t even bother investing in the present. As a result we have begun the process of cannibalizing our infrastructure for petty cash.

Is it too late to turn this all around?

We can invest in our future by investing in the present. The W.P.A. shows one means by which investing in exciting projects today translates into real payoffs for the future. The interstate highway system, the moon landing and the Internet are more examples of investments that continue to pay dividends. If we were willing to, large investments in education, clean energy and financial regulation would reap enormous rewards for our children, and put parents to work today, on projects they can be proud of.

Not only can we can do it again, we can do it better.

1935 WPA 1937

1935 WPA 1938

1935 WPA 1939

BUILT BY WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION 1935-1937 b

BUILT BY WORKS PROJECTS ADMINISTRATION RI 1939 b

BUILT BY WORKS PROJECTS ADMINISTRATION RI 1941 a

Libertarianism and the Efficiency of Free Markets


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

There are two intellectual positions with which I have serious problems.

The first is the whole idea that markets are efficient; the second is libertarianism as a legitimate school of thought.

First, markets, since some of libertarianism (from what I can gather) is based on the idea that markets should be utterly unfettered (I paraphrase).

Found this interesting:

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR37.3/ndf_michael_j_sandel_markets_morals.php

It’s a discussion on whether all things should be subject to free markets. What’s the answer?

These are directions that the article doesn’t go. Markets are supposed to be the most efficient way to allocate scarce resources.  So, do they always work optimally? Do they always work?

Here’s a scarce resource: admission to elite colleges, like Harvard. Should this not be left to the market to allocate these positions? The highest bidder gets in? If not, why not? If not, isn’t this an admission that free markets may not always be the best means of allocation?

Here’s another: selling organs. There is a case to be made that people should be able to sell a kidney. OK, not sure I agree, but I admit that disallowing this is possibly nanny-state meddling. So, for the sake of argument. let’s say that we should allow the sale of organs.

Now, kidneys are certainly a scarce resource. So, rather than give someone a set fee for their kidney ($100k + medical expenses, let’s say), why not let the donor sell it in an open auction? Like on eBay. Except maybe a site dedicated to organ sales, called, oh, Organs-r-Us?

Is this OK? If the donor can sell it, why not get what s/he can for it? Isn’t that efficient?  How is buying a kidney on the market different from selling it for gain? And if you’re going to gain, why not let the market set the price?

If markets are efficient, why would this be wrong? Better yet, how can it be wrong?

Discuss.

 

Basic Oil Economics or No More Jed Clampetts

T"...when up from the ground come a-bubblin' crude."oday’s Morning Joe program on MSNBC featured a typically brain-dead discussion of oil prices. I’ll summarize…

Joe Scarborough: We’re producing more oil, but the price is still high. That’s un-possible!

Time Mag’s Richard Stengel: I know. Can you believe it?

What’s missing from this discussion – and all the blather we’ve heard and will hear from the GOP during the 2012 election – is a fundamental understanding of what it means to produce petrochemical liquid fuels.

Oil Pumping Basics

Since before the Macondo explosion and leak, I’ve been a fan of The Oil Drum, a peak-everything blog that focuses on the oil patch. You really can learn quite a bit from the authors and the commenters, who tend to be oil field vets. Here’s what’s most important to this discussion:

It costs money to get oil.

The photo above is from the opening credits of the classic TV show The Beverly Hillbillies in which Jed Clampett is “shootin’ at some food, when up from the ground comes a-bubblin’ crude.” Half a century ago, that was a plausible scenario – oil deposits almost on the surface could be breached with virtually zero effort. Dig a hole anywhere in Texas, and you’re rich!

Those days are long, long gone. Hence peak oil. Peak oil does not necessarily mean that there’s no more oil in the ground; it means that we’ve reached (and surpassed) the point of diminishing returns in terms of the cost of getting oil.

Think about this: the Macondo well – referred to by workers as ‘the well from hell’ – required sending robotic submersibles a mile down in the ocean and then drilling a hole an additional two miles into the earth. So you’re reaching down a total of three miles just to get to the “discovered” deposit before you find out what’s actually down there. (Satan, as it turned out…)

That kind of engineering doesn’t come cheap.

If there were an easier and cheaper place to get oil, don’t you think BP would have opted for that? Of course they would have, but the fact is that there isn’t an easier place to get oil. Hence Macondo.

“Economic” Oil Extraction

It’s silly to criticize Obama or any part of the US government for restricting off shore oil production because the oil companies are already sitting on a giant number of leases. The reason that these leases aren’t being used is that it’s not “economic” to go get the oil – the price doesn’t justify the cost of extraction.

There’s a clear correlation between the price of oil and the amount of production, and this confirms the basic peak oil argument. The cheap and easy oil is all gone, so prices have to reach certain thresholds before it’s worth the effort to go get the oil we know is in the ground.

This is why 2008 was a banner year for deep water oil. Prices sky-rocketed, and suddenly it was worth the effort to drill down three miles to get to a deposit. Drilling platforms were double- and triple-booked. Even though prices fell by half from their peak as a result of the financial meltdown, they quickly rebounded to the $70 – $80 region.

After a brief hiatus, it was back to work for the rigs. A prime driver of BP’s foolish haste capping Macondo was that the drilling rig was already late for its next assignment. They also wanted to skip a step and turn the exploratory well into a production well to get the oil to market quickly.

With the current price of oil (NYMEX) over $100, seriously whacky oil sources become profitable – shale oil and even drilling in the Arctic Ocean. That is insane!

So, we know that we can get more oil if the price is high enough. Therefore, producing more oil won’t make prices go down to what they have been in the past; it will only make prices pull back from their highs.

So, sorry Newt. $2.50 per gallon gas is exactly as plausible as you becoming President of the United States.

The Two Main Drivers of Oil Extraction Costs

Obviously, the simple costs of getting labor and machinery out to the oil deposit’s location and then drilling, lining and capping the well represent the primary factor in the equation that determines if an oil well is economic to drill. Equally obvious is the fact that the market price – and no other factor – influences the decision to produce or not to produce. There are likely a few exceptions of deposits close to population centers or very close to coastlines, but there are so many leases on known deposits that fights over the exceptions are political shenanigans and little more.

Here’s what’s not obvious and what’s really behind the peak oil equation – the amount of energy it takes to produce energy. Deep sea submersible, massive mud-pumping ships and floating cities called “drilling platforms” don’t run on unicorn tears. They mostly run on oil.

As oil gets harder and harder to reach, it takes more and more energy to pump that next barrel. And even within a single deposit, the first barrels come out on their own but as pressure drops it takes more and more energy to get each successive barrel. Pumping the bottom of a well that’s three miles below the earth’s surface requires a lot of suction!

Compare the easy Texas drilling of the Jed Clampett days to the process of separating oil from Canadian tar sands or shale. It takes a lot of money and energy just to get the crude. Then you need to include the costs and energy inputs of distillation. That doesn’t come for free either.

The bottom line is that high gasoline prices are here to stay, and there’s nothing that any politician can do about it. Anybody who says otherwise is either a liar or a fool.

Been there, done that reiterated


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

First, let me apologize that I’m not addressing this in the comments of the original post. I simply am not able to participate in the discussion on the threads.  However,  I am pleased to see the amount of intelligent discussion that took place.

In particular, there was some back-and-forth about unregulated capitalism, what constitutes it, etc.  There is one very important point I want to stress on this.  It’s the crux of my argument.

I made the point that I’m not trained as an economist.  That wasn’t necessarily deference, but an indication of my point of view.  I am not terribly concerned to argue about econometric models that may–or may not–describe, or even resemble reality.

I am approaching this from an historical perspective.  I am not concerned with what the models tell us may happen; I want to know what happened when certain conditions were in place.

Unregulated capitalism did exist.  In real life. It was how the markets operated from the mid-1800s until regulations cleaned it up in the 1930s. This means we have what is called a ‘natural experiment’, in which conditions are not modeled, but put in place.

So we don’t have to ask what the various schools of economics tell us what will, or might happen should unregulated capitalism occur. We’ve been there. We’ve done that. We tried it. It didn’t work.

The result was a welter of vertically-integrated monopolies, or near monopolies.  I quoted a source that had a contemporary description of the situation that existed. Whole sectors of the economy were controlled by single companies headed up by a single individual. This was described as a good thing because it ended ‘wasteful competition.’

In the process the economy was subjected to cycle of boom and bust, the busts getting progressively worse, until we were hit with the Great Depression. At which point, we started regulating the markets, the first step being  to prohibit monopolies.

Again, this is not theory. It’s what happened the first time. There is absolutely no reason to believe it won’t happen again should we deregulate even more than we have. Corporations are getting larger. Intel and Microsoft have no effective competition. Banks are so large that the failure of one can bring down the entire economy.

Since we did that, the economy grew, and the recessions that occurred were generally much shallower and of significantly shorter duration than what occurred before the 1930s. This was called the great moderation.

Then we started de-regulating. We kept de-regulating. Banking in particular was de-regulated to a degree not seen since, well, the 1920s. After which, they went off on a spree based not on sound market principles, but speculative fervor. The result was a crash that was the worst since, well, the 1930s.

This is not a coincidence.

Unregulated markets? We tried it once. It didn’t work.

Been there, done that

I suppose the aspect of conservative thought that most…puzzles? annoys? makes me laugh?…let’s say ‘puzzles’ me is the sense they seem to have that their ideas are somehow bold, and daring, and novel.

In fact, conservative ideas–low taxes, no regulation, no government–have all been tried. In fact, these ideas describe how government operated throughout most of human history.  And they certainly describe the government of the US for most of its history.

Newsflash: these ideas didn’t work. We tried them, they didn’t work.

Let’s take the whole free market thing. *

One caveat: I am not an economist; I have no training as an economist. I do spend a lot of time reading economics blogs. I have five or six that I read regularly, another dozen that I read once a week or so. Definitions presented will generally be from Wikipedia, so they will be easy to verify.

Generally speaking, a free market is, more or less, unregulated. The idea is that all of the players–buyers and sellers–jockey back and forth in a rough-and-tumble so that prices come to reflect the best value as determined by the ‘market’, and resources are allocated efficiently and optimally.

For a free market to work, one aspect that must happen is that there must be robust competition among both buyers and sellers.  Without robust competition, sometimes a buyer, more often a seller will gain a competitive advantage.  The theory is that the competition will grind this advantage away, by underselling, a better product, or some such mechanism.

Competition will do this, but only under certain conditions. Competition is effective whenever the barriers to entry into a market are reasonably low. For example, a lemonade stand. My kid can put one up in a few minutes, undersell the kid who’s charging a buck a cup, and take away the price gouger’s market share in a heartbeat.

But what happens when barriers to entry are high? What about a mine? Or an oil refinery? Or a steel mill? Or meat packing?

Enterprises like these require huge capital outlays over a sustained period before they can enter the market. When they are able to do so, they are usually at a competitive disadvantage on price, since their operation may not have the efficiencies of scale that the established concerns do. In situations where barriers to entry are high, the tendency is for the operator with the most money will eventually win.

This was the Walgreens strategy: put up a chain store to compete with the local pharmacy, undersell the local, drive it out of business, then raise prices. Walgreens could afford to lose money on a lot of items because it was financed by a corporate treasury. Now we are in a situation in which there are virtually no local/mom-and-pop pharmacies. We have our choice of CVS (yes, it’s local, but hardly mom-and-pop), Rite-Aid, and Walgreens. Competition, but not overly robust. I suspect that Walgreens will disappear within a decade.

Even more to the point. In downtown Providence, we used to have the corporate HQ for several banks. Now, we have a satellite office for a single bank, a huge national conglomerate, that may, apparently, be pulling out of Providence.

These results are not surprising. This is what happens in a free market. It’s exactly what happened the first time we had unregulated, free markets.

This occurred in the aftermath of the Civil War. The war provided a huge market for a lot of industrial products, so a lot of entrepreneurs took advantage and went into business to supply this market.  Within fifteen years (give or take), most of these small businesses had vanished, having been swallowed up, or driven out of business by huge, vertically-integrated corporations, known at the time as trusts.

Not all trusts were monopolies, but many of them were. They bought, crushed, or drowned their competitors in a bath tub. This was considered a good thing; Rockefeller trumpeted his intention to ‘end wasteful competition.’  Even if they never quite attained a true monopoly–and it wasn’t for lack of trying– they dominated their markets.

Given the direction in which we are going, it is very important to remember what has happened. Given the death of Brooks Pharmacy, and Fleet Bank, and Hospital Trust, we need to recognize the path we’re on.

An unregulated, free market will generally end up in a monopoly in any situation in which barriers to entry are high. And they are high in most industries, in finance,  even in a lot of retail operations.

And, just so there’s no doubt, below is evidence, demonstrating that our first experience with free markets ended up with most markets controlled by de facto monopolies. I don’t want it said that I make claims without offering proof.

I’m outsourcing this to a history book.  The first edition came out in 1973; I’m quoting the second, from 1989. Either way, this stuff was written before the poisoned partisanship brought out by Newt Gingrich, when there was only one set of facts for everyone. Nowadays, there’s the actual set, and then there’s the set claimed by conservatives, in which tax cuts pay for themselves and stimulate economic growth, the economy has gotten worse under Obama, and we can drill our way to energy independence. More on some of those at a later date.

The Shaping of Modern America: 1877-1920                     2nd Edition

by Vincent DeSantis     Harlan Davidson, Wheeling IL, 1973 & 1989

Page 12…Just as Rockefeller had cornered the refining market, so Andrew Carnegie captured much of the steel market…
…From then on, led the field in the steel industry. He took bought out and took into his business Henry Clay Frick, who in the [1870s] had gained control of most of the coke ovens around Pittsburgh. Together they created a great vertical combine of coal fields, coke ovens, limestone deposits, iron mined, ore ships, and railroads….
Page 13…After Standard Oil Company set the trust pattern in 1879 other business enterprises of this form soon appeared.  Before long most Americans were referring to all large corporations as trusts, a word that soon became loosely synonymous in the public mind with monopoly. Many important industries ceased to be competitive and in addition to steel, oil, and railroads similar combinations were built by equally forceful and ambitious entrepreneurs in other fields. [The list of such megalithic companies included t]he McCormick Harvester Company…American Tobacco Company…American Sugar Refining Company…while Philip D Armour and Gustavus Swift dominated the meat-packing business…
Page 14….As the American people watched the proliferating of trusts and millionaires, many became convinced that something had to be done to restore effective competition. There arose a popular outcry against monopolies….William W. Cook, an eminent corporation lawyer in New York, made a very sharp attack on monopolies in a volume on Trusts (1888) when he wrote:
              (quoting Cook:)….. It is currently reported and believed that the “Trust” monopolies have drawn within their grasp not only kerosene oil and cotton-seed oil, but sugar, oatmeal, starch, white corn meal, straw, paper,… whiskey. rubber, steel,….wrought iron, pipes, iron nuts, stoves, lead, copper, envelopes, paper bags, paving pitch, cordage, coke, reaping and binding and mowing machines, plows, glass, and water works. And the list is growing day by day…
[ End cite ]
I hope everyone finds this both informative and convincing.
*Note: in comments on another thread, I posited that a free market and an unregulated market are not the same thing. The problem with comments is that they rarely reflect a considered opinion, since they often get dashed off in the heat of the moment. I regret that I made that distinction.