9/24/2008

So if I were Barack Obama...

What's the harm in calling McCain's bluff?

First of all, I don't think the responsible thing to do is to rush through some half-baked "aid" package which will increase the national debt by hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars. I work on the general assumption that neither McCain or Obama trusts the free market enough to let it sort itself out. I'll grant that most of the nation doesn't either.

McCain has tied the credibility of his campaign to the urgent (by definition rushed and poorly considered) passage of a bailout plan - ANY bailout plan. Well, more of an idea really, than a plan. He's reacting to a developing economic crisis as if it's part of the 24-hour news cycle. This isn't a media event that will be forgotten in a week. It needs to be carefully considered as though it will impact the largest economy in the world for the next ten years. And if it demands a response, then we should be very careful that the impacts of the response aren't deeper and longer-lasting than the original problem. You know, like the precedent of nationalizing large swaths of the financial sector.

But what if there wasn't a trillion dollar boondoggle solution before the election? How would that play out? There are only two ways that could happen, and both require large numbers of our congressmen to act more like statesmen, and less like politicians.

One would be for congressional republicans to recognize the value of waiting to more carefully consider any action until after the election. Perhaps a modest and narrowly focused aid bill in the short-term as a goodwill demonstration, with the promise to review the matter more fully when more facts are known. If enough democrats signed on to that idea, it could gain some momentum. Most importantly, it could allow a more carefully considered solution without anyone in congress feeling as though they had a gun to their head. McCain would be free then to declare his goal acheived and resume his campaign. Realistically, I think the majority party has enough leverage to prevent this from happening, and to force the congressional republicans to accept a broad, pork-filled package, stuffed to the gills with over-regulation.

The other possibility for a delayed financial package would be that congressional democrats would delay any bill themselves. They, too, could claim the wisdom of delaying action until more facts are known. They could follow John McCain's lead by holding hearings to show the nation how serious they are about getting to the bottom of the mess. They could abandon their own campaigns to call witness after witness to demonstrate how the rich have caused this problem, but it's the middle class Americans who are suffering for it. They could save the last five weeks worth of campaign funds and continue to add to their lead in public opinion polls, guaranteeing a continued lock on both houses of Congress. And John McCain's campaign would be faced with the no-win choice of sitting the campaign out to demonstrate his non-partisan concern for the economy or abandoning Senate deliberations he stressed the importance of in order to return to his campaign.

The right thing to do is not to react too quickly, and John McCain has unfortunately failed this test.

2/16/2006

Taxes on windfall profits

Why do we need them, since there are already corporate income taxes which (theoretically) are taxes on the profits made by a business? The idea that we should tax "excessively" large profits at a higher rate than others implies that there is such a thing as an excessively large profit.

It assumes one of two things:

  1. Either that a corporation lucked into an exceptionally high earnings year without significant planning, preparation, or risk, and that's a dubious notion in itself,

  2. Or that while the corporation may have laid the groundwork for its success, it isn't entitled to benefit from it.
It further assumes that larger profit values should be taxed progressively: the more a company makes, the higher the tax rate should be. It suggests that the purpose of a business enterprise is to generate revenue -- not for its owners or shareholders -- but for the government.

It changes the after-tax income from the reward for a wise investment of time and resources into merely the charitable indulgence of a beneficent government. In effect, it punishes successful businesses for an effective and efficient distribution of resources, which is a goal which should be in everyone's best interest. Such punitive taxes amount to a financial disincentive to invest in market segments where the demand is highest, potentially diminishing the supply and raising prices on the product -- oil anyone?

One more thing before I wrap up. I'm not suggesting here that taxes are bad, per se. But I do think there's a moral implication to tax policy. This nation has long recognized a strong right to property, and the idea that a corporation is in business to generate revenue for the nation (rather than for shareholders) represents a sharp retreat from a dearly held American value.

For more on the topic, check out Stephen Green's Monday post on Vodkapundit. (I know, I'm late in getting to this.)

Tags: ,

11/17/2005

Markets work. (aka: Steve Forbes may be right)

I mentioned this a few months ago. Forbes predicted an oil price drop way back in August. Looks like it's happening. Only question is whether it will keep going.

And for the record, gas prices are back to within 20 cents of where they were a year ago, despite an increase of almost 100% from November to September. Here's the DOE stats for Ohio.

Hat tip to David at Constitutional Brothers
Coldheartedtruth asks Are those hearings helping gas prices ??
Brian at FutureWire sees a different forecast
Tags: ,

9/06/2005

So gas should be cheaper in Iraq than here, right?

I think everyone expects that. As the political situation there stabilizes, the oil supply from Iraq will increase. (According to the Department of Energy, Iraq's all-time peak oil production was in December 1979, at 3.7 million barrels daily. As of May '05, daily production had reached a level of 1.9 million barrels. Clearly, more can be done in the future.)

But the price difference between gasoline made from Iraqi oil, refined and sold here and gasoline sold in Iraq should basically consist of the cost of transportation plus the difference in refining costs and taxes.

So guess what Iraq does. I don't know how old this policy is, and whether it dates back to Saddam. There's no question, though, that its results are clear. Even to a member of the MSM. The policy I'm talking about isn't the one in the headline. It's down about 6 paragraphs.

This is the new policy they're enforcing (with questionable success), which is mentioned in the headline.

To save fuel, and to general confusion, the government has ordered half the capital's car fleet off the roads on any given day.

Tuesday was the first day of the new rule, and only cars with licence plates ending in an odd number could take to the streets.
This is the policy that caused the problem, which they've done nothing to address. The emphasis is mine.
Shortages have become inevitable, creating queues and a thriving black market for gasoline, which, because of subsidies, officially costs just over one U.S. cent per liter.
If that isn't a typo on Reuters' part, then that works out to less than 4 cents per gallon. Most cars here could fill up for less than a dollar. Does anyone have an incentive to reduce their usage of a product when they pay so much less than it costs to produce?

It doesn't matter whether the subsidy is a direct subsidy supported by payments from the government, or whether it's in indirect subsidy in reaction to an attempt by a government to control the price. In either case, demand will increase. And if the subsidy is indirect, as I described in my earlier post, there's no incentive for the supplier to maintain a supply equal to demand. The result is a shortage.

Update: Iraq the Model has some more information about the new driving limits. Notice what he says abot the price. There's a black market (due to the shortages). And the new policy is having the impact of reducing the black market price -- to about 40 cents/gallon, if my math is right.

Tags: or

8/31/2005

Hmmm

Steve Forbes has been saying the oil market bubble is going to burst.

"I'll make a bold prediction... in 12 months, you're going to see oil down to 35-40 usd a barrel," he said, according to Agence France-Presse.
I wonder if he'd care to revise that now. My gut says it would be good if it the price of oil was cut in half, especially with some major rebuilding expenses around the corner. But I wonder whether that would cripple the oil refineries the way 9/11 did to the airline industry.
"I don't think it's going to go to 100 usd but if it does the crash is going to be even more spectacular," he said. "It will make the hi-tech bubble look like a picnic -- this thing is not going to last."
Sounds like Forbes thinks it might.

Category:,

8/27/2005

Junk Science

CNN reports the state of Hawaii has decided to cap wholesale prices for gasoline.

The refiners weighed in against it last month, calling it a bad idea.

"Chevron continues to believe that price caps are bad public policy which will not be in the best interest of Hawai'i's consumers, and that free markets perform most efficiently and effectively in balancing supply and demand," the company's filing stated.
and in stronger terms:
Tesoro, Hawai'i's other refiner, opposed the price cap outright.

"Price controls of any type or design do not work and will create harmful market distortions that may increase the risks to Hawai'i consumers and the economy and may jeopardize the viability of Hawai'i's refining industry," Tesoro wrote.
They're absolutely right, but the state "consumer advocate" pooh-poohed their complaints.
The state consumer advocate, the only other party to weigh in on the caps, suggested changes to the price cap formula currently being developed by the PUC. John Cole, executive director of the state consumer advocacy office, wrote that the caps could increase the risk of gasoline shortages and lead to the closure of a local refinery and some gasoline wholesalers among other things. However, the office generally supported implementing the caps.

"The regulation of wholesale gasoline prices is a first in this country and the risks outlined above are just that — risks," Cole wrote. "They are not certain to happen."
Read the whole artice in the Honolulu Advertiser.

How is it that the "Dismal Science" gets treated like such a mystery? Some things about economics are complex, but the law of supply and demand is pretty simple ECON101 stuff. Any time demand rises relative to supply (or supply shrinks relative to demand) the price of the goods will rise until there is a balance.

So what does a lower price do to demand? What happens when your favorite cereal goes on sale? You buy more. What happens when Big 3 automakers give employee discounts to everyone? They sell more cars. Whatever the commodity is, when you lower the price without lowering the value the demand will increase.

What does an increase in demand do to supply? That depends. If the suppliers have capacity to increase output to meet demand without additional unit cost, they will likely do so to increase profit. If the suppliers must make a large investment (build another refinery) with delayed returns (x years to build, including cutting through bureaucratic red tape; additional y years to pay off initial investment) and uncertain levels of risk (what will the total supply and demand be in (x + y) years) then they may be very reluctant to take the risk .

And we are resource-limited in this country, when it comes to refineries. So when demand rises due to an artificially low price, the suppliers are reluctant to make the investment to increase capacity. They then have a choice. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that Hawaii accounts for 1% of all gasoline consumption in the country. Now let's also assume that the demand for gasoline in this country is 1/4% more than the total available production capacity. (That is: 1/4% of the demand is unmet. We'd use more if it were available, but it isn't.) The refiners can supply Hawaii its full demand at a lower profit margin (or possibly a loss) or they can take 1/2 of what would be sold in Hawaii and deliver it to the mainland, where it can be sold at full price. The result: the mainland gets its full demand met, while Hawaii gets only half its demand met. This is a shortage, and not a little one. This is the kind which would cause governments to be overthrown in non-democratic nations.

(I haven't bothered to account for shipping costs here. Obviously, it may be cost prohibitive to send oil to Hawaii to be refined, then ship it back to the west coast for distribution. But it would be in the refiner's best interest to refrain from shipping refined gasoline to Hawaii. The capacity of Hawaii's refineries may be the limiting factor in determining the portion of the available product supplied to Hawaiians.)

Just about everyone over the age of 10 should understand profit motive, though many have sadly accepted the idea that the people with the least right to determine the profit margin are those who have an interest in the company.

It is from that group that the question is posed:
Why can't the refineries continue to meet the demand in Hawaii at a small loss, since they would continue to profit in the rest of the country?

The assumption implied by those who ask is that the lower price in Hawaii is subsidized by the company. Maybe so. What happens when California decides to fix the price as well? The market for gasoline in the state of California is obviously larger than that in Hawaii, and it would be nearly impossible for the refiners to simply absorb the loss. They must then either pull back from the California market or increase the price for everyone else.

(It gets worse still, in the case of California. Let's say the CA market for gasoline is 15% of the total national consumption. They can only pull 1/2% out to sell at a profit, leaving 14.5% to be sold in CA at a loss or not at all. It is almost inconceivable that suppliers would continue to sell such a large portion of their product at a loss, if there is a profitable market elsewhere. It's possible that they would respond by withholding almost all shipments to California, supplying less than 20% of the demand, as compared to 50% in the Hawaii example.

There's really no question that in the California example, a shortage would result, and that the cause would be the effort to directly control prices. The difference between the actual price cap in Hawaii and a hypothetical price fix in California is only a matter of degrees. In either case it is wrong. Bad science. Foolish meddling. Just plain morally wrong.

Update: Kip Esquire has a great post on this from a few days ago.

Update 8/29: McQ covers the impact of Katrina on the situation.