Pages

 
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economics. Show all posts

The benevolence of the petrol station manager

0 comments
A Devon petrol station is charging drivers more than £1.99 a litre - or about £9 a gallon - for petrol and diesel as drivers clamour for fuel.

He said the move was prompted by dwindling stocks. "We cannot get any more supplies. We're not being mean. I would say I'm a very nice person. The price will go back to normal as soon as we get a delivery."


Here's more.

UPDATE: £1.99 it is no more. The free market is out, rationing is in. Tim Harford comments.
Read more from this post in Review topics and articles of economics »

Are the baby boomers coming?

0 comments
This is, for example, Greg Mankiw: 'a looming fiscal crisis, which threatens to unfold as baby boomers retire and start collecting Social Security and Medicare' (and, unrelated to the topic, here's an entertaining quarrel)

This graph from the Congressional Budget Office flies to the face of this mantra:

A presentation is here, and here's interesting commentary:

Although many observers portray aging as the dominant cause of future growth in federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid, most of the increase that CBO projects reflects rising costs per beneficiary rather than rising numbers of beneficiaries. The effect of population aging is smaller.


That said, note that this (i.e. Medicare and Medicaid commanding 20% of GDP), simply can't happen, and the only thing that can give is the 'excess cost'.

What this graph says one thing only: we should expect the growth rate of medical knowledge to slow down in the years to come.
Read more from this post in Review topics and articles of economics »

The BBC

0 comments
Does not do economics. Does not believe in it. Anything vaguely related to economic reasoning is alien to anything that has anything to do with the Beeb. Check this one out:

The likes of Jonathan Ross and Chris Moyles are not receiving salaries above the market rate, according to a review of how the BBC pays its top names.


That’s not taking into account the fact that the BBC has massive price-setting power, being by far the biggest broadcaster in the land (and controlling 2 of the 5 terrestrial channels, only one of which has anything near it’s market share)... I would also think that Jonathan Ross, Chris Moyles, etc pretty much ARE the supply side of the market for extremely well-known and trustworthy TV presenters.

So, over-simplifying but just a little, the report says that the BBC does not pay more for its stars than what the BBC pays for its stars. Nice.

And ignoring market structure completely, they utterly fail to understand what the law of one price implies. ‘The BBC does not pay more than others’ – what’s the alternative? That they paid more than ITV for the same thing just for the fun of it?

I want my license fee back! And yes, I love Dr. Who and Have I Got News for You, but £130 a year?
Read more from this post in Review topics and articles of economics »

Trailblazers

0 comments
Look ma, Ben is smoking a cigarette! See how unfair you've been to complain about my burning down the house?

As Monetary Authorities, we have been humbled and have taken heart in the realization that some leading Central Banks, including those in the USA and the UK, are now not just talking of, but also actually implementing flexible and pragmatic central bank support programmes where these are deemed necessary in their National interests.

That is precisely the path that we began over 4 years ago in pursuit of our own national interest and we have not wavered on that critical path despite the untold misunderstanding, vilification and demonization we have endured from across the political divide.

A few months ago, the USA economy confronted a severe mortgage crisis, which threatened to spark an economy-wide recession.

The USA Central Bank again responded by injecting over US $160 billion between December, 2007 and March, 2008, to provide impetus to the American economy and prevent a worse crisis from happening....

Here in Zimbabwe we had our near-bank failures a few years ago and we responded by providing the affected Banks with the Troubled Bank Fund (TBF) for which we were heavily criticized even by some multi-lateral institutions who today are silent when the Central Banks of UK and USA are going the same way and doing the same thing under very similar circumstances thereby continuing the unfortunate hypocrisy that what’s good for goose is not good for the gander....

As Monetary Authorities, we commend those of our peers, the world over, who have now seen the light on the need for the adoption of flexible and practical interventions and support to key sectors of the economy when faced with unusual circumstances.


Brilliant! Tip of the hat to Greg Mankiw.
Read more from this post in Review topics and articles of economics »

Wtf?! The unlikely guardians of competition

0 comments
This is the weirdest story I've read in a while. Check out who is objecting to the emerging acquisition of yahoo by google:

Alarm at Google Yahoo partnering

Regulators in the US are being urged to investigate any potential online advertising and search partnership between Google and Yahoo.

The call by a coalition of 16 American civil rights and rural advocacy bodies [DC: What do civil rights and rural advocacy?!?? bodies have to do with competition?] comes despite the fact no firm deal has actually been announced.

"We all suffer in such mega mergers," Gary Flowers of the Black Leadership Forum told BBC News.

[The] coalition is made up of the League of Rural Voters, the National Black Chamber of Commerce and the American Agriculture Movement.

It also includes the Black Leadership Forum, an umbrella group of 36 civil rights organisations including the NAACP and the National Urban League.

League of Rural Voters' executive director Niel Ritchie claims that the do-no-evil mantra may no longer apply in today's marketplace in which Google's reach is apparently without bound, touching more and more aspects of our everyday lives.

"We believe the government should give this agreement very careful scrutiny," he says.


Can someone explain me what rural advocacy and agriculture groups have to do with the Google-Yahoo! merger?
Read more from this post in Review topics and articles of economics »

Surging oil prices? Think again

0 comments
Barrels of oil per dollar in blue, Euro in red and ounce of gold in purple.

The recent prices of crude oil has been perceived as ever rising, surging, incredible expensive, ... but as an analysis published by American Geological Institute Workforce Program, once you measure oil in gold, it seems that the price has been fairly stable since 2001.

The steep increase in the price of crude oil in the United States remains a headline issue, along with the falling US dollar. The drop in the dollar has caused concern in oil-producing countries which use it as the economic basis for the commodity, and often their currency. The chart below shows the spot market price of crude oil per barrel (BBL) in US dollars and in euros from 2001 to today. The price of oil has grown faster relative to the dollar than to the euro. Yet, a portion of the rise in oil prices is due to the fall of the value of the dollar. The graph also shows the number of barrels of crude oil per cost of an ounce of gold, demonstrating the parallel growth in commodity pricing.
Read more from this post in Review topics and articles of economics »

Africa is growing

0 comments
For four consecutive years, Africa has experienced record economic growth. Overall in 2007 the continent registered 5.7 per cent GDP growth and a per capita increase of 3.7 per cent. Indications are that growth will only accelerate in 2008 and remain buoyant in 2009.


This is from the OECD's African Economic Outlook 2008, released yesterday. High oil and food prices feature prominently:

[A] reality masked by the growth figures is that net oil exporters continue to outpace oil importers by far. In 2008, the average real GDP growth rate for the former collection of countries is expected to be 6.8 per cent, but it will only be 4.9 per cent for the latter.
Read more from this post in Review topics and articles of economics »

An alternative approach to bank regulation

0 comments
A while back I wrote:

Banks are not, and cannot, be plc's in the same way that other companies are. The social value of a steelmaker can only fall as far down as zero, while the social value of a bank can be much, much lower than that.


Avinash Persaud at Vox EU proposes a solution:

The third pillar [of financial regulation reform] is requiring banks to pay an insurance premium to tax payers against the risk that the tax payer will be required to bail them out. If such a market could be created, it would not only incentivise good banking and push the focus of regulation away from process to outcomes, but it would provide an incentive for banks to be less systemic. Today, banks have an incentive to be more systemic as a bail out is then guaranteed. The right response to Citibank’s routine failure to anticipate its credit risks is not for it to keep on getting bigger so that it can remain too big to fail, but for it to whither away under rising insurance premiums paid to tax payers.
Read more from this post in Review topics and articles of economics »

Why do the credit rating agencies move the sovereign debt market?

0 comments
Markets play a simple yet crucial role: they price (or 'rate') assets, so as to ensure societal resources are allocated efficiently.

Markets do this better than any other institution yet devised because people need to put their money where their mouth is; it is not enough to say 'I think Greece will default' - if you are going to have an influence on the price, you have to be willing to take the risk of losing money if your opinion turns out to be wrong, and you would only do that if you have confidence in your information and analysis. That way, the price of different assets, including sovereign debt, is determined by the people with the best information (or, as is the case when it comes to extremely deep and liquid markets such as sovereign debt, the best ability to process the information that is freely available to all).

So, it is a serious perversion of this basic principle when the credit ratings agencies spend 60,000 dollars a year (that's the annual wage of a junior analyst) on analyzing Greek debt while investing exactly $0 on it, yet the effect they have on the price of that debt is equivalent to their controlling billions in funds. What the hell does it mean to 'rate debt'? Isn't this what the market is supposed to be doing by setting the price?

This state of affairs is so striking that I have to repeat this again. Markets work because people put their money on the line: ratings agencies don't. Furthermore, information on sovereign debt is abundant and the agencies have no informational advantage whatsoever (not to mention an appalling ratings record). Giving dodgy ratings to obscure CDOs is one thing, but rating sovereign debt should have had no effect on its price - information is aplenty.

I'm trying to work out a model as to why real market participants (you know, the ones with money on the line) don't completely discount the agencies' credit ratings of sovereign debt. Where I've got to so far implies that ratings agencies can only have a destructive effect, leading the market away from the efficient price: since the ratings do not reveal any new information (as I said, info on sovereign debt is abundant), the only reason they can move the price of debt is because they give an opportunity to smart money to profit at the expense of dumb money - money that is too stupid to rate sovereign debt independently, or is restricted from investing in debt below a particular rating.

I repeat: this is seriously messed up. Do the credit agencies have access to superior information on Greek debt compared to everyone (indeed anyone) else? No. Does the $60,000/ year S&P team analyzing Greek debt have such amazingly better insights than the collective might of analysts of hundreds of funds and banks across the globe? Hell no. Then why in the name of all that is folly does what S&P say affects the price of sovereign debt to such an extent?

And let me repeat a crucial point in case it wasn't made clear (a lot of repetition in this post, but this is what happens when your blogger starts getting a distinct feeling that either he has gone crazy or the rest of the world has). Don't try arguing that even if the credit ratings agencies don't have their money on the line they have their reputation to worry about - in case you just arrived on our beautiful planet from somewhere in the outer universe, they seriously messed up with CDOs with no effect whatsoever on their credibility and their ability to make money (there is a word for companies that can provide a crappy service and stay in business: they are called monopolies).

All in all, credit rating agencies have a destructive influence. They facilitate speculation at the expense of market efficiency, creating or reinforcing herd effects where market participants try to outfox the 'bigger idiots' rather than aim for the efficient price, seriously distorting the essential role of the market in accurately pricing assets. They risk nothing when pontificating on the value of different assets, and they add nothing real to the stock of available information - just a focal point for speculation. Furthermore, they are so embedded in the system - with funds having restrictions in their constitution restricting what they can invest in depending on its credit rating - that it's difficult to see a way forward.

We can start by pointing out the absurdity of the situation.
Read more from this post in Review topics and articles of economics »

50 ways to leave your lover, recession edition

0 comments
BEIJING (Reuters) - Fears of a prolonged recession in China have triggered a sharp increase in divorce inquiries addressed to lawyers and financial advisers, state media reported on Monday, with timing a key issue.

Wealthy spouses were keen to strike a deal while asset values were low, the China Daily quoted the director of the China Divorce Service Center, Shu Xin, as saying.

But China University of Political Science and Law professor Wu Changzhen said it may be too early to know the impact of the financial crisis on divorce rates.

"It seems the rates may have dropped since the downturn, because divorces are expensive," he was quoted as saying.
Read more from this post in Review topics and articles of economics »

Would an economist kill him? The case of Leonel Torres Herrera

0 comments
I am an innocent man, and something very wrong is taking place tonight. May God bless you all. I am ready.

This is from the last statement of L T Herrera, from a long, comprehensive list of last statements preserved by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. (via Pharyngula)

Excerpts from the opinion of the Supreme Court, delivered by Chief Justice Rehnquist, including a description of the case:

Petitioner Leonel Torres Herrera was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death in January 1982. He unsuccessfully challenged the conviction on direct appeal and state collateral proceedings in the Texas state courts, and in a federal habeas petition. In February 1992--10 years after his conviction--he urged in a second federal habeas petition that he was "actually innocent" of the murder for which he was sentenced to death, and that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process of law therefore forbid his execution. He supported this claim with affidavits tending to show that his now dead brother, rather than he, had been the perpetrator of the crime. Petitioner urges us to hold that this showing of innocence entitles him to relief in this federal habeas proceeding.[Emphasis DC] We hold that it does not.

[...] In any system of criminal justice, "innocence" or "guilt" must be determined in some sort of a judicial proceeding. Petitioner's showing of innocence, and indeed his constitutional claim for relief based upon that showing, must be evaluated in the light of the previous proceedings in this case, which have stretched over a span of 10 years.

Once a defendant has been afforded a fair trial and convicted of the offense for which he was charged, the presumption of innocence disappears. [...] ("The purpose of the trial stage from the State's point of view is to convert a criminal defendant from a person presumed innocent to one found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"). In the eyes of the law, petitioner does not come before the Court as one who is "innocent," but on the contrary as one who has been convicted by due process of law of two brutal murders.


And excerpts from the dissent, delivered by Justice Blackmun:

We really are being asked to decide whether the Constitution forbids the execution of a person who has been validly convicted and sentenced but who, nonetheless, can prove his innocence with newly discovered evidence. Despite the State of Texas' astonishing protestation to the contrary [...] I do not see how the answer can be anything but "yes."

The protection of the Eighth Amendment does not end once a defendant has been validly convicted and sentenced. In Johnson v. Mississippi, 486 U.S. 578 (1988), the petitioner had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death on the basis of three aggravating circumstances. One of those circumstances was that he previously had been convicted of a violent felony in the State of New York. After Johnson had been sentenced to death, the New York Court of Appeals reversed his prior conviction. Although there was no question that the prior conviction was valid at the time of Johnson's sentencing, this Court held that the Eighth Amendment required review of the sentence because "the jury was allowed to consider evidence that has been revealed to be materially inaccurate." [...]

Just as an execution without adequate safeguards is unacceptable, so too is an execution when the condemned prisoner can prove that he is innocent. The execution of a person who can show that he is innocent comes perilously close to simple murder.

The opinion, and to a lesser extent the dissent, do a horrible job of expaining and addressing the issue at hand.

Society has a certain 'model' ('judicial proceedings') it uses to determine whether a person in guilty or innocent. The issue before the Court is really very simple: does the expected gain in the predictive power of the model as a result of utilising the previously unavailable information justify the cost - in a wide sense - of a re-trial (i.e. re-running the model)? Both the opinion and the dissent touch on this in an incoherent manner, and treat these considerations as peripheral.

Chief Justice Renquist's thesis basically consists of stating that re-trials are costly so we need to take into account the output of previous trials even when these did not utilise all available information ('once a defendant has been afforded a fair trial and convicted of the offense for which he was charged, the presumption of innocence disappears.') while Justice Blackmun is mainly concerned with asserting that utilising more information would be beneficial. In the end, there is no systematic attempt at stacking one against the other.

When will courts start thinking and arguing clearly? The wonderful lessons of economics - define a clear question, explicitly state your assumptions, reach a robust conclusion - must make their way to the hallowed halls of justice, where they will find a natural, welcoming home.
Read more from this post in Review topics and articles of economics »

Driving is better than walking for the environment

0 comments
If you walk 1.5 miles, Mr. Goodall calculates, and replace those calories by drinking about a cup of milk, the greenhouse emissions connected with that milk (like methane from the dairy farm and carbon dioxide from the delivery truck) are just about equal to the emissions from a typical car making the same trip. And if there were two of you making the trip, then the car would definitely be the more planet-friendly way to go.

Mr. Goodall is a member of the Green Party in Britain and a devout environmentalist — he says he has ceased air travel because of its emissions. But he also questions how much good is being done by eliminating short trips by car.

Elizabeth didn't believe me when I mentioned this a few months ago, so I'm finally getting around to posting the details and my sources: TierneyLab via Freakonomics, almost a year ago. I'm also wondering whether Mr. Goodall actually underestimates the amount of CO2 emmitted by humans: he only takes emmissions during food production and transportation into account. But we are not that dissimilar to a car: we burn fuel (food) and emit C02 as we breathe - the more active we are, the more burning of calories, and the more CO2 we emit via breathing. And legs - unlike wheels - are not built for maximum fuel efficiency when moving from A to B.

Beth doesn't have a car, but she's going one better by cycling lots and never consuming any animal products. You can listen to her beautiful music, and you can see a video of a live performance at the legendary Jazz Cafe in London. She also blogs and tweets.
Read more from this post in Review topics and articles of economics »

Explaining Bernanke's answer

0 comments
In case you missed it, here is the question, answer and various links. So, what's going on?

Bernanke, the preeminent economist, has turned banker. (Or, to be more precise, he is acting banker because this is what is expected of him. I read his answer as 'I know better, but I operate within constraints'. Time man of the year or whatever, Bernanke does not single-handedly set monetary policy - far from it.)

The distinction is simple. The economist wants to return the economy to trend growth and reduce unemployment. Inflation is important, but it's no holy grail.

The banker, on the other hand, just wants inflation to be low so that the real value of debt does not fall. And that's basically it.

The Fed is completely captured by bankers. Forget about bonuses, bankers are screwing the economy by controlling the intellectual climate and policy apparatus so that inflation stays low - too low.

And by the way, a very similar question was put to the Governor of the Bank of England about a month ago - scroll down to question 49.
Read more from this post in Review topics and articles of economics »

It's the economy, stupid

0 comments

Andrew Gelman has more, the paper (free access) is here.
Read more from this post in Review topics and articles of economics »

G-Econ: Economic activity tracked down

0 comments
This is amazing, and in fact it's exactly what we needed for a paper we are about to start writing (Indifference Merv, take notice):

The G-Econ research project is devoted to developing a geophysically based data set on economic activity for the world. The current data set (GEcon 1.3) is now publicly available and covers "gross cell product" for all regions for 1990, which includes 27,500 terrestrial observations. The basic metric is the regional equivalent of gross domestic product.


Here's the project's homepage, thanks to Netsmith for the pointer.

This paper (free access) is particularly interesting - it's also short and very readable:

Three applications of the data are investigated. First, the puzzling 'climate-output reversal' is detected, whereby the relationship between temperature and output is negative when measured on a per capita basis and strongly positive on a per area basis. Second, the database allows better resolution of the impact of geographic attributes on African poverty, finding geography is an important source of income differences relative to high-income regions. Finally, we use the G-Econ data to provide estimates of the economic impact of greenhouse warming, with larger estimates of warming damages than past studies.
Read more from this post in Review topics and articles of economics »

The cost of living extremely well index

0 comments
Read more from this post in Review topics and articles of economics »

Progressive taxation: yeah, right

0 comments
Alex Tabarrok and Greg Mankiw have the right answer to the wrong question. The question is whether the rich pay a higher share of their income in taxes than the poor, and the answer is yes*.

Do you remember Robin Hood? He stole from the rich and gave to the poor; there is no account of the story where he is described as stealing from the high-earners.

The progressivity of income tax is not the *issue* at all. What really matters for people's welfare and purchasing power is wealth. Looking at the tax system as a whole, the rich pay a scandalously small proportion of their wealth in taxes, the poor a scandalously large one. (let me remind you that in the US 1% of households owns 38% of all wealth on last count, and that's not including intangible wealth such as human capital and access to corporate assets.) And still we have this ridiculous situation whereby people try to figure out how redistributive our society is by looking at the flow of purchasing power and ignoring the bloody stock.

Now, Robin, this is status quo bias.


*these numbers are computed in a way that makes the gap in the effective tax rates between the poor and the rich appear wider than is actually the case, but that's an issue for a different post.

Disclaimer: As is usually the case, this is all positive analysis, and descriptive - rather than policy prescriptive - (couldn't help the rhyme here) at that. I'm not saying the rich should be paying more and I'm not saying that they shouldn't. I'm not saying we should be looking to tax wealth rather than income either. And if the words 'consumption' and 'savings' sprung to mind as somehow justifying it all, well done, but this is not a post about morality.
Read more from this post in Review topics and articles of economics »

Bear Stearns and the mob

0 comments
How much is Bear Stearns worth? Last time I checked, JP Morgan was paying 10 dollars a share, but only after the Fed agreed to provide a number of taxpayer-funded goodies to make it worth for the good bankers at J to the P to take the plunge.

The value of these goodies easily runs to plenty of times 10$ a share, which places the social value of Bear Stearns in solid red territory. Yet it still makes sense for the taxpayer to fund this deal, and to compensate Bear shareholders for being such bloody fools. Bear Stearns can't fail, as it will take the entire banking system and the 'real economy' with it.

This would never (well, almost never) happen with, say, a steelmaker or software company of similar size. That's why banks are not, and cannot, be plc's in the same way that other companies are. The social value of a steelmaker can only fall as far down as zero, while the social value of a bank can be much, much lower than that.

Failing banks are in many ways similar to the mob: not offering anything useful to anyone other than themselves, but having such ability to cause trouble that it makes sense to give them money simply to avoid the worst.

With the mob, local businessmen and residents pay the price. With banks, this is the job of the taxpayer.
Read more from this post in Review topics and articles of economics »

Party finance reform: a different idea

0 comments
Party funding is in the news again, and once more the focus is on caps and bans, as well as increased taxpayer funding. What's missing from the debate is another possibility: why not tax 'unwanted' or 'undesirable' contributions and spending proportionately to the degree of their undesirability rather than ban them outright? Here's what I wrote back when there were about three people reading this blog:

I am no expert, but these are the main issues as I understand them:

1. Owing to their ability to make higher contributions, rich individuals and corporations disproportionately influence the political agenda and government decisions. On the other hand, small contributions by individuals are seen as beneficial, as they promote wider participation in the political process.

2. The bulk of campaign spending is socially wasteful, closely resembling an arms race. If there was a way to bring total spending down in a universally accepted manner, everyone would be better off.

3. The main approach in the UK and the US to rectifying problems 1 & 2 above is legislation that imposes more transparency (parties have to declare the contributions they receive) coupled with restrictions on the amount of money an individual or organisation can donate.

Here's a different idea. Why not tax campaign contributions to the extent they are deemed to be socially undesirable? I propose instituting the Undue Influence Tax (UIT), to be introduced as part of the 'Invigorating Democracy Act' and waged on individual donations (and to give it an extra bit of harmless spin, it should be paid by the political parties rather than the donors). It will start at 0% of the value of the contribution, jumping to 30% after the first $5,000 or so, 50% after $10,000 and reaching 95% beyond $50,000.

This will make 'buying' political influence much more expensive - and as we know, when the price of a good rises, quantity falls. It will increase the relative value of small contributions, making candidates reach more to 'the people', rather than the wealthy and large corporations. Suitably calibrated, it can rectify all the actual and perceived ills of the current campaign finance framework.

Furthermore, the UIT is a tax-man's dream. It could become the most popular tax in history, as it only affects a small number of citizens, while clearly contributing towards a greater public good - 'giving power to the people'. The revenue obtained should allow for cuts elsewhere in the tax system or increased spending on public services. There is no need for additional bureaucracy - parties already have to declare contributors' names and donations. Whatever the rate, avoiding the tax is an option only for candidates with a political death-wish. Finally, it can be introduced gradually and fine-tuned to desirable levels , without generating any distortionary behavioural effects.

I'm sure the membership of the (carbon) Pigou club would approve.

That's what I wrote back then, but it seems I have ignored another important benefit of using a tax approach. Since cross-party agreement is needed, moving from banning to taxing also means that the policy space becomes a continuum rather than a series of discrete choices where it's impossible to meet the other party 'in the middle'. Allowing variable tax rates in the policy space means that the probability a mutually agreeable compromise can be reached is much higher than when choice is restricted between binary 'ban-no ban' options.
Read more from this post in Review topics and articles of economics »

Double standards

0 comments
This must be the most rambling and disjointed post that has ever appeared on Bluematter.; the reader would be well advised to scroll further down.

It is a fact that, at least ignoring second-order effects, the whole house market crash/ subprime crisis thing will have no long run effects on output. Concerns about the distribution of wealth apart (the current mess will lead to a massive redistibution from home-owners and loan issuers to the rest of society), there is no effect on anything other than how we value a single good: the land and the houses are still there and they are exactly the same as before; the only thing that is in fact different is that a house now buys fewer tomatoes than it used to.

In other words, there is nothing special about a house market crash or correction; it's just a change in the relative prices of different goods in the economy. In fact, to the extent that land is a capital good, society as a whole is better off: think how much better off we would all be if oil was free (ignoring pollution). If Saudi Arabia gets screwed in the process, we can always compensate them so that the advent of 'free oil' consitutes a pareto improvement.

Many economists reading this will argue that this is all well known; the long run is not the issue at all here and the reason everyone is so worried is the short run and the probability this will push us into a recession.

Now think of our approach to free trade and immigration. The parallels are striking: in the long-run, society is better off (again, ignoring the effects of redistibution), much as is the case with lower land prices. In the short-run, many people see part of their wealth (e.g. human capital) dramatically change in relative price terms. The only difference between freeing up trade and letting the housing market go to bust taking the homeowners with it is speed and numbers. The dismantling of barriers to trade or immigration has never been so rapid or universal so as to allow that many people to get screwed at the same time so that a recession ensues. (at least not at the national level; you can always look at the dying cities of Detroit or Buffalo in the States, the great industrial and mining towns of the UK and most farming towns in the Continent).

Economists are generally gung-ho when it comes to liberalising trade, while they tend to express concerns when they see falling asset prices. The difference between the two, however, does not amount to much other than the *natural* speed at which each occurs. I'm all for both, but the different approach has to be seen as a comment on the desirability of shock therapy when it comes to economic policy.
Read more from this post in Review topics and articles of economics »