By B.P.T., on January 23rd, 2012
Thanks to Darwin Barton
There’s something to be said for raising your kids on a daily basis and that’s what I’m working on doing. A few years back my husband and I made the tough decision for me to quit my job and it’s been really nice, actually, since we’re able to have me watch the kids all day while he works. I love him to death but I wish he made a bit more money only because our life has changed dramatically in the last few years. We’ve not cut back on certain things like home alarm systems and the organic produce we like to buy but others like trash pickup and things like that had to go to make room for our new lifestyle. I don’t feel bad about it though because it means I get to be with the kids and do what I like to do which just makes me feel good about how I’m living my life. I know the kids appreciate being able to have their mom around!
 Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts
By Simon Grey, on January 5th, 2012
You don’t have to shell out hundreds of dollars every year to watch your favorite shows. This year, consider canceling your cable and taking advantage of several free and low-cost entertainment services. The website Hulu, for instance, lets you watch a variety of hit shows for free such as Glee, The Office and Modern Family, plus movies and documentaries. Or for $7.99 a month, you can take advantage of Hulu Plus, which gives you access to all of the selections on regular Hulu, plus more shows and movies.
You can also watch many shows for free on the network’s website, or pay $7.99 for Netflix, which provides access to unlimited movies and TV episodes.
The reason why cable is so expensive is because ad revenue alone is insufficient to cover both production costs and distribution costs. Cable and satellite networks are expensive to build and maintain, and content creation can often be pricey. As such, cable providers have to charge customers in order to be profitable.
The problem internet-based entertainment services face is that they are causing a significant portion of data transfer (i.e. the amount of data transmitted across the various data networks) but aren’t paying for any of the network upkeep and maintenance. Essentially they are paying only for content creation and distribution rights. This, incidentally, is why Hulu+ and Netflix subscriptions are so cheap (that, and Hulu is pretty well-connected to the NBC and Fox family of networks).
More importantly, it is the data service providers who have to pay for the creation and upkeep of data networks, and these networks have data transfer limits known as bandwidth. Essentially, there are limits to how much data can be transferred across a network at any given time. As more and more people begin to use online video content providers, there will be even more at being transferred at any given time, pushing up against physical network limits.
Data service providers will then have two options when this inevitably happens: increase bandwidth or cap data transfers. Most data transfer providers have relatively tight margins, so upgrading a network is not particularly feasible, nor will it be particularly widespread. Thus, the more common choice will be to cap data. Data caps (whether in terms of bandwidth usage or total data downloaded) will significantly curtail entertainment options, and so whatever profitability online video sites may have now will be either significantly reduced or completely eliminated, unless they decide to raise their fees.
Quite simply, the internet is not yet ready to replace cable. The network is not sufficiently built up. More importantly, the producers and aggregators of online content are not paying for the distribution of their content, and those who distribute content (data service providers) don’t have much reason to upgrade their network.
Ultimately, there is a strong chance that the market for online videos will eventually come to resemble the subscription television market. The separation of content providers and content distributors provides a problematic incentive structure that won’t be easily remedies unless content aggregators/producers have a financial stake in distribution, and vice versa.
Note: one thing that complicates this discussion immensely is the role of IP. If there were no IP, there would be many more aggregators of videos, and their subscription costs, if any, would be minimal since it would be considerably easier to find advertisers for pre-existing content, thus leading to an easy method of third-party funding. On the other hand, the amount of original content would diminish, and would probably become more low-brow.
By Thomas Knapp, on January 2nd, 2012
The saying is attributed to Ahmed Ibn Abu al-Hassan al-Nuri.
No, I’m not a scholar of Sufism. I came across the quote in Kim Stanley Robinson’s Mars trilogy years ago, and it spoke to me in a certain way — not as a moral or religious principle per se so much as a practical strategy for avoiding undesired entanglements, particularly vis a vis the state.
The jury’s still out on how well that works, by the way.
Anyway, I thought I’d throw it out there for discussion.
By Simon Grey, on December 15th, 2011
Researchers with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that investors who used low-down-payment, subprime credit to purchase multiple residential properties helped inflate home prices and are largely to blame for the recession. The researchers said their findings focused on an “undocumented” dimension of the housing market crisis that had been previously overlooked as officials focused on how to contain the financial crisis, not what caused it.
More than a third of all U.S. home mortgages granted in 2006 went to people who already owned at least one house, according to the report. In Arizona, California, Florida and Nevada, where average home prices more than doubled from 2000 to 2006, investors made up nearly half of all mortgage-backed purchases during the housing bubble. Buyers owning three or more properties represented the fastest-growing segment of homeowners during that time.
“This may have allowed the bubble to inflate further, which caused millions of owner-occupants to pay more if they wanted to buy a home for their family,” the researchers noted.
Investors defaulted in large numbers after home values began to drop in 2006. They accounted for more than 25 percent of seriously delinquent mortgage balances nationwide, and more than a third in Arizona, California, Florida, and Nevada from 2007 to 2009.
Sweet Keynes but the banksters just do not have a clue. Somehow, the FRB of New York has come to the hilarious conclusion that somehow, mysteriously, those who “flip” houses are the root cause of the recession. Talk about clueless.
The question that the NY FRB is apparently too stupid to ask is: Why would some people suddenly decide to “flip” houses? Answer: because it’s generally profitable due to the increased demand for houses as a result of a)artificially low interest rates from The Fed, b) massive fraud among the banks in regards to loan application, c) the Federal Government’s willingness to subsidize market risk, and thus eliminate moral hazard, through the agencies Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and d) the general tendency of the government to encourage and subsidize home ownership through, among other things, federal income tax breaks. Basically, the government as at the root of most of the problem here, and the Federal Reserve played a major role.
Of course, the FRB is not going to admit to wrongdoing, particularly since greedy businessmen make for a more compelling villain in this narrative. But blaming people for responding to incentives at the margin, as clearly happened in this case, is indicative of just how worthless mainstream macroeconomic analysis clearly is. Quite simply, it takes an astonishing amount of either dishonesty or short-sightedness to come to the conclusion that greedy businessmen are to blame for the current recession instead of the incentive system in which they operated.
The shallowness of this analysis, if honest, is simply evidence that those who are currently in charge are simply too stupid to merit the power with which they’ve been entrusted. If, on the other hand, they are liars, the case for their removal from power is not in any way diminished. In sum, there is no excuse for those presumed to be intelligent, and thus deserving of power, to be offering analysis this putridly vapid; they must be summarily dismissed and the system must be dispatched with.
* Cf. Dr. Sowell’s book Applied Economics.
By Doug Gentry, on November 22nd, 2011
 Jeff Stahler – Columbus Dispatch In Macro class today we talked about what is really a dual decision. First, should our national policy encourage spending or saving? Second, should government actions favor consumption or investment?
First, some definitions and a smidgen of theory. There is a simple dichotomy over how a family or a nation uses their income. They can spend it (i.e. consume) – which means purchasing goods and services that provide benefits right now. Or they can save it – by putting it in the bank or paying off debts, or even purchasing stock with it. Presumably the savings will improve things in the future (more on that later in this post.) Personal savings (excluding business and government action) have declined as a percent of income since 1980 and probably longer. The personal savings rate was 3.6 percent as of September 2011 (source: FRED). That meant we spent or consumed 96.4 percent.
Savings fuel investment. When households save, businesses save, and the government runs a surplus, this provides funds which can then be borrowed for investment purposes. Done correctly those investment activities will reap economic benefits in the future. If the government operates with a deficit, this adversely offsets personal and business savings. Government borrowing removes funds from the investment pool – a term called “crowding out.”
So, should we encourage people to spend or save right now? Saving brings up good images of a frugal nation, putting aside current desires for a better future. On the other hand, saving does nothing to stimulate demand right now as we struggle to return to full employment. For an extreme example consider Japan in the 1990s, which suffered what is sometimes called “the lost decade.” A real estate bubble popped, causing a typical recession, but then even with low interest rates businesses and families saved rather than spent. They entered what Paul Krugman calls a liquidity trap. Robust economic growth didn’t return for 10 years.
Were someone to ask me this first, spend or save, question, I would recommend incentives to spend – in the short and medium run. Restoring economic activity to its full potential is our most important priority right now – more important than the national debt and more important than future investment. A program to encourage more personal savings would be counter productive. As the economy starts growing on its own steam, we could then switch to more emphasis on savings.
Consume or Invest?
Now to our second, related question. As government considers fiscal policy (government spending and taxation) it would be wise to target those efforts strategically. Some government spending and some tax cuts will encourage consumption. This can be an appropriate goal during recessionary times, because the added consumption will add directly to GDP. In econ-jargon we call this shifting aggregate demand higher (to the right). If we were considering tax cuts, then targeting low and middle income families will yield the most effective bang for the buck. Lower income families spend more of new income on consumption. Higher income families, having met many of their day-to-day requirements put proportionately more of that new income to saving (including stock purchases.)
Let’s consider what to do once the economy is starting to grow on its own. Do we continue to encourage consumption, or should we shift to investment? I prefer the latter. Investment means putting off the benefits or happiness of current consumption, and directing resources to a better future. Using our tax cut scenario from above, we could argue that cuts should go to higher income families, since they are more likely to save, which in turn should encourage investment. Unfortunately for the advocates of this position there is theory but not much in the way of verifiable results to support this approach.
So, if the economy is growing or starting to regain its momentum, our other choice is to use government spending on thoughtful investments. Pushing aside some of the political wordsmithing, President Obama’s preference for spending on infrastructure fits with this goal. It asks a lot of Congress and the White House to choose investment projects wisely – the lobbying wolves are seldom at bay. There’s an old saw in the grant funding world, that if money is going to support more pigs, successful applicants learn to become pigs. This makes it difficult to thoughtfully target that spending.
My take on this is to be skeptical of general tax cuts – particularly those that funnel most of the money towards higher income families. Tax cuts will fuel consumption at all levels of income, though more consumption among lower income families. And there is scant evidence that money kept by higher income families truly generate savings that lead to thoughtful investment in our future.
By The Energy Report, on November 11th, 2011
 Fertilizer companies have felt the pain of global monetary chaos, but as indicators lag, some potash equities are positioned ahead of the curve for big gains. Dundee Capital Markets Vice President and Senior Financial Analyst Richard Kelertas believes investors need to be sharpening their pencils and establishing positions. In this exclusive interview with The Energy Report, Kelertas shares his best names.
The Energy Report: There’s been damage done to potash stocks over the past six months. Why?
Richard Kelertas: Macro issues have hurt all commodities. When the world is worried about its next breath, all these stocks get hit very hard. We’ve had the Euro crisis and then the Greek debt crisis since these stocks peaked in summer. Also, I think there were expectations that North America and Europe would emerge from the last serious recession with half-decent growth going forward, and that recovery would be moderate, measured and continual from 2010 all the way up to 2013–2014. That’s now been interrupted by macro events, and the odds that they will be quickly resolved is almost nil. We are going to have to deal with slower economic growth worldwide, not just in the eurozone and North America, but also in China and all of Asia because it’s all interdependent.
We will also have to expect that the consumer will be drawn back a bit, both in Western societies where food is a necessity and a luxury, and in developing economies where it is a necessity. So, high-end food values, high-end organics and food stocks that are higher priced will be under pressure. That means lower requirements for meats, which means that the farmer may be cutting back on his crop output.
TER: Can you make a case for growth in potash consumption?
RK: For the next six months, I expect flat growth. Prices and volumes have retreated slightly. Inventories dropped in October. That’s good news. I expect prices will be flat to down.
However, if Europe’s debt crisis and low North American growth are resolved in the next 6–12 months, we could then see Asian export nations gear up again. That means that their diets will improve again, and crop prices and speculation in crop price increases going forward will pick up. That will happen sooner than six months in the futures market, but at the same time my expectation is that the next six months are going to be slow.
Within the next year, we should see some growth return. That will be composed of three components: Farmers will use potash at normal levels and growth will be reflected in shipments and prices. Lands that will be brought back into production will expand demand. This is fallow or abandoned agricultural land throughout the world, especially in Africa, that has been bought up by either investment pools or sovereign wealth funds or specialty farm land managers. In the grand scheme of things that doesn’t seem to be a lot in terms of the total farmland area throughout the world; however, potash application rates will be much higher than normal because you are bringing it from infertility to fertility levels. So, we could see a substantial push and it will show up in perhaps a 0.5–0.75% increase in potash demand worldwide.
TER: Are you able to venture a forecast on the price of potash?
RK: My international price forecast, the Vancouver export price, is about $450–465 per ton (/t) right now. For 2012 we expect an average price of $505/t and then moving to $520/t average price in 2013. The peak price in 2013 should be around $650/t, maybe $625/t. But, it won’t be as high as the $700-725/t that I thought may take place when I made that forecast a year ago.
TER: Are fertilizer prices leading or lagging economic indicators?
RK: They are lagging indicators. We need to see economic activity pickup first. The mood of farmers is always pretty gloomy, and getting them to change their view on world markets requires crop prices to move. But, crop prices won’t move really unless you see economic activity pickup.
TER: Is potash still low-hanging fruit? Or is it getting much more difficult to mine?
RK: That’s a good question. We just put on a seminar and heard from ERCOSPLAN, the German exploration consulting firm that has provided a lot of NI 43-101s for potash projects throughout the world. If you’re doing deep shaft, it is very expensive and time consuming, and there are long lead times. I would say that most of the best sites, except in Saskatchewan and Russia, are deep-shaft mines. There may be one or two open-pit opportunities in Ethiopia or in Utah where you’ve got very shallow deposits. Solution mining, though, provides you with the opportunity to get several large sites into production in a relatively short period of time.
But the limiting factor right now is financing, and that’s because you’re dealing with $800 million (M)–1 billion (B) for a 1–1.5 billion tons per year (tpa) equivalent of potash, even for a solution mine. The second limiting factor is cash balances. If we are going to have a long, drawn-out economic downturn here, which is quite possible, then very few of these projects will come to fruition and get into production. They will run out of cash before they can either get taken out or get the financing. So, there are only a couple of strong plays that have plenty of cash and, where cash-burn rates are low, can survive this downturn and lack of liquidity in the marketplace. The third thing is that we could possibly see some deep-shaft mines flood over the next 6, 12, or 24 months like we had in Russia with Sil’vinit (acquired by Uralkali OAO (URKA:RTS; URKA:MICEX; URKA:LSE). We could see something possibly happen in Saskatchewan or in other areas. And I don’t think it’s a question of “if”; I think it’s a question of “when”. Many deep-shaft mines are 2,200 meters down. A lot of money is being spent pumping out water, and you could see some production disruptions. If that’s the case then the market could get tighter very quickly.
TER: Limited access to financing could be a major problem for small companies, couldn’t it?
RK: Yes, absolutely. I think about 100 worldwide projects are being considered in potash, both public and private. I would say 10–15% of them have a hope of getting financing, and of that, I think perhaps three or four might actually get financing.
TER: From everything you’ve just said it sounds like margins are going to have to contract or that prices are going to have to go up. Where does this put the potash producers?
RK: Well, at the current pricing their margins are pretty good. For instance Potash Corp. (POT:TSX; POT:NYSE; Not Rated) is the most visible, and its operating margin, not gross margin, so we’re talking before interest, is about 40%–45%. Terra Nitrogen Co., L.P. (TNH:NYSE; Not Rated) is 65%. CF Industries Holdings Inc. (CF:NYSE; Not Rated) is 60%. Now CF is urea, and it’s a different kettle of fish, but Potash Corp. is about 40%. So, prices can come off quite a bit before they’re going to have any issues. However, I can tell you that any projects that are not in progress will be put on the back burner. You need to have potash pricing power. For instance, BHP Billiton Ltd. (BHP:NYSE; BHPLF:OTCPK; Not Rated) Jansen Project in Saskatchewan needs average long-term potash prices of about $500–550/t really to make a go of it, and from my work the long-term international price is about $410–425/t.
But to answer your question, in a lot of cases their cost inputs have gone up too. So, if they have the combination of prices falling while their cost inputs remain high for let’s say two, three or four quarters, their margins are going to get squeezed quite substantially. But there is no doubt about Q112 and Q212, so If this economic crisis settles down, they’re going to push for higher prices.
TER: The large-cap companies have so many advantages. It seems like there’s so much risk in the small-cap potash equities.
RK: Right: That’s why they’ve been hit very hard. The juniors are the most at risk.
TER: What regions are the most favorable for companies right now?
RK: I would say the best places are Saskatchewan, Utah, Arizona and Ethiopia in Africa.
TER: What specific companies are you telling your clients to invest in?
RK: We’ve been very consistent in the stocks we like since the economic crisis of 2008. On the large-cap side, Agrium Inc. (AGU:NYSE; Buy) has probably had the lowest margins of the big-cap names, but it tends to have the most diversity in its product mix. It has a wholesale nutrient division, a retail division and a specialty fertilizer division, which includes distribution. In a tough economic environment, we opt for diversification. In a very strong commodity market, it makes sense to go to single commodities or pure nutrient plays like Potash Corp., CF Industries, Terra, The Mosaic Company (MOS:NYSE; Not Rated) or Intrepid Potash Inc. (IPI:NYSE; Not Rated). Because we expected the economic recovery to be very difficult, we liked Agrium the best in the large-cap space, and we still feel that way. Until we see commodities fundamentals suggesting a speeding up of economic recovery, we’ll stick with Agrium on the large-cap side.
TER: What about small caps?
RK: On the small cap side our top picks continue to be Allana Potash Corp. (AAA:TSX; ALLRF:OTCQX; Buy) and Karnalyte Resources Inc. (KRN:TSX; Buy). They have the most cash, the lowest burn rate and they are the closest to production and financing. They have all the components in place, including their NI 43-101 resource estimates. But they both have different advantages and disadvantages. Allana has the possibility of being an open-pit mine, or open-pit/solution mine combination, or just a solution mine, which would be low cost because of the solar evaporation in Ethiopia.
Karnalyte is a solution mine, but it’s a gigantic deposit and will probably only need one cavern for 10 years. It does not have to do a lot of drilling. But if it does, the drilling will be horizontal. The key thing with Karnalyte is that it has boron-free magnesium chloride. That is attached to the potassium salt, KCL. The magnesium chloride comes out with the potassium. Thus, its extraction costs are not any different. Refining costs are going to be a little bit more expensive to separate the magnesium chloride, but that’s an extra revenue source.
TER: So, Allana is getting the magnesium chloride practically for free?
RK: That’s correct. Allana has not only the opportunity for MOP (muriate of potash), which is the standard potash, but also SOP (sulfate of potash), which sells at a premium. When the first million tons is fully operational, Allana will be able to produce 20–30% SOP.
TER: Karnalyte is up 31% over the past 12 weeks, and it’s the only one I see with its head above water over that period. Most others are the mirror image of that, down anywhere from 20–40%. Why such high relative strength?
RK: I think there are a few things: One, it has been getting its story out aggressively. Number two, it has been very close to getting the feasibility portion of its magnesium chloride production, and that will be ready by the end of November. I think that’s the most important thing, and it is just now starting to be understood by the market, which has been quite anticipatory of that. Three, there’s been some talk on the street that Karnalyte has worked a 30% contingency into its production costs, which is a lot higher than what it will actually work out to be. That means that its return on the project is much higher, we think, than what the company has been telling the street.
TER: How much per ton is the magnesium chloride right now?
RK: Well, it sells anywhere from $450–700/t depending on the end-product use and the purity levels. It will almost be a one for one. I think that Karnalyte will be able to get 600,000 tpa of magnesium product that they’ll be able to take out of the ground. That’s not factored into its numbers, but my NAV reflects that expectation to a small extent. So, it could be double the size in terms of profitability and revenue than the consensus on the street.
TER: Your target price on Allana is $3.05, which is an implied return of about 200% from current levels. I’m wondering about its preliminary economic assessment (PEA) due out before year-end. What is that going to tell investors?
RK: Well, I think it is going to solidify the resource in terms of measured/inferred. And of course, you’ll get a good idea of whether Allana can go to an open-pit or solution or both. More than everything else it’ll firm up the opex and capex. It will be quite clear that the area will support not just a million tons per year (Mtpa), but 2–2.5 Mtpa.
TER: If it is a solution mine, how much advantage will the solar heat evaporation be?
RK: If it’s open-pit, opex will be $40–50/t. If it is a solution mine it’ll be $65–70. A typical solution mine with natural gas or coal evaporation costs would be close to $90–100/t.
TER: What other companies are you talking to investors about?
RK: Well, at our conference we had nine presenters. Of course Allana and Karnalyte were there. We also had Passport Potash Inc. (PPI:TSX.V; PPRTF:OTCQX; Restricted). There were others at the conference that we have put on our watch list, and we are bringing them forward to investors as items of interest. We are looking at the resource and numbers on each one. They include Western Potash Corp. (WPX:TSX.V; Neutral), which just came out with a further update on its NI 43-101 and firmed up its resource estimate and capex/opex. We had IC Potash Corp. (ICP:TSX.V; ICPTF:OTCQX; Buy). We had Encanto Potash Corp. (EPO:TSX.V; Buy) and we also had ENP Minerals, which is hoping to get going in Utah. We had Rio Verde Minerals Development Corp. (RVD:TSX; Neutral), Epm Mining Ventures Inc. (EPK:TSX.V; Neutral) and Verde Potash (NPK:TSX.V; Neutral). So, we’re talking about those and getting up to speed as well on the numbers and the resource for each one of those companies. We’ve issued research on them and put them on our watch list, but we don’t have firm numbers or target prices for them yet. We will continue to speak with those companies.
TER: Western Potash CEO John Costigan noted that his company has the largest resource base of current junior potash explorers and developers. What does that mean to you?
RK: Well, there’s the old adage: It’s not necessarily how big it is but how low-cost it gets. To me, quality or concentration of the resource is number one. You have to take a lot of brine out before you get a half-decent concentration of potash. So, it is going to be all about costs. It seems to have fairly low opex costs, but I have to check into that and do more work on it. On the surface, costs seem to be a bit low compared with comparable projects. The initial capex of $2.5B to get it started sounds reasonable for a 2 Mta mine. I think it’s going to be a question of distance to market and ease of getting the mine up and running.
TER: Encanto was one of the presenters at your conference. How much can it expand its resource?
RK: From the information we have, we think the resource could be expanded quite significantly. With all the agreements Encanto has with native groups in Saskatchewan and its proximity to the Esterhazy deposit where Potash Corp., Agrium and Mosiac all operate, I think it has a good chance of expanding its resource anywhere from 25–50%. That is quite possible. But, again, before we make any pronouncements on it, we’re going to be speaking with management and talking with the engineers and geologists.
TER: Were there any other companies you wanted to mention?
RK: Not at this stage. We haven’t done enough work on, for instance, Ethiopian Potash Corp. (FED:TSX.V; FED.WT:TSX.V; Not Rated). We haven’t done enough work on IC Potash or EPM Minerals. So, we’ll reserve judgment on those for the time being.
TER: Richard, it was a great pleasure speaking with you once again.
RK: No problem, my pleasure as well.
Richard Kelertas has 25 years experience as a research analyst covering the forest products sector. He has been one of the top-ranked analysts in the sector over the years consistently, and was most recently ranked No. 1 by Brendan Woods. Kelertas has worked for a number of well-known brokerage firms, including ScotiaMcLeod, Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, UBS Warburg, and Desjardins Securities. He has a bachelor’s degree in forestry and a master’s degree in forestry and economics from the University of Toronto. Richard is also a Registered Professional Forester.
By Simon Grey, on October 6th, 2011
Scott Adams has an interesting post called “ Capitulation Stimulation” wherein he theorizes that inflation will kill investing, sparking consumption: Real estate is starting to look as if it will be a bad investment for a generation. Municipal bonds appear riskier than ever. It’s scary to hold cash if your bank has been misbehaving and you have more money in your account than the government insures. How about investing overseas? No thank you. Meanwhile, serious people are predicting that the government will allow inflation to increase as a way of eroding the value of the national debt.
So what does a rational, employed person with some extra money do? I think consumer spending is on the verge of spiking as high-income people decide they’d rather buy some nice things than lose money in sketchy investments. In other words, the horribleness of the economy is the very thing that will make it self-correcting. I could summarize the idea as “Screw the stock market. I might as well buy something.”
There’s a “capitulation stimulation” coming soon. In this context, capitulation means investors give up on investing, or at least love it less, and decide to spend more money on new cars, furniture, phones, and that sort of thing. If you buy a new TV, you have something you can enjoy. If you invest, all you end up with is less money. When being an investor starts to look irrational, overspending becomes the new rational.
I’m inclined to agree with Adams on this, though with the understanding that the rate of inflation will have to be generally high. Theoretically, the rate of inflation would, at the least, have to be higher than the expected rate of return of all investment types, ceteris parabis. Even then, however, it is impossible to say in advance how high the rate of inflation will be, and it is also impossible to know in advance what sort of return one will have on one’s investments. Furthermore, people who are inclined to invest in the first place are more conservative when it comes to money, so the disparity between the rate of inflation and the rate of return on investments would have to be quite noticeable and prolonged in order to expect those currently investing to switch from investing to spending.
This scenario would thus require either hyperinflation (or really high inflation) or investment return rates that are either zero or negative. Hyperinflation, of course, is economically deadly since there will be no incentive to engage in long-term capital accumulation. I’m not sure if low investment returns are a bad thing, in and of themselves, but I can’t imagine that this encourages long-term capital accumulation either.
At any rate, Adams is correct in noting that inflation, if high enough, has a very strong tendency to pull demand forward. And he is also correct in noting that this will stimulate the economy. Unfortunately, like all rounds of inflation Quantitative Easing before it, the results will be disastrous since inflation will disincentivize long-term planning. And once people only concern themselves with the short-term, the words of Keynes will ring far truer than he imagined: “in the long run, we are all dead.” And it will be because we did not plan for the long run. Indeed, we would have no incentive to do so.
By Doug Gentry, on September 12th, 2011
 Say’s Law or Keynes’? If we can peel away the political posturing, there is an important argument in the issue of how best to generate a recovery in our country’s economy. Put simply, the question is whether producers (employers) are the answer and we should do everything we can to encourage them, or whether we should do something to encourage demand for their products.
Jean-Baptiste Say gets naming rights for the law that says that production will encourage demand and thus more production. Proponents of Say’s Law argue that producers can ramp up production which will in turn foster demand for those products, and that demand will flow to greater production elsewhere. The law assumes that business will not hoard capital funds, but will invest them in greater production. In today’s dialogue, when we hear calls to reduce business taxes or relieve business of the uncertainty or burden of government regulation, it is the ghost of Say who is speaking. This position holds that unfettered business will invest in more production and growth, and that will, in turn, generate new jobs and economic opportunity. It is roughly accurate to put the label of supply side economics with this group.
In the other corner is John Maynard Keynes. Keynes argued that the economy depends on the demand for goods and services, and that when necessary the government should encourage that demand through added spending or tax cuts. Keynes felt that encouraging demand, by placing more money in the hands of consumers, would stimulate businesses to ramp up production, which in turn increases employment. Today, Keynesian proponents argue for more government spending, and broad based tax cuts (not the kind of cuts targeted only at businesses).
Both approaches have some grounding in economic theory. The Keynesian approach has a better track record in real life, and there are signs in our current, sluggish recovery, that business is not following the assumptions built into Say’s Law. When President Hoover was faced with the early years of the Great Depression, his advisers followed the main stream economic thinking of the time, which was Say’s Law. In addition, main stream economic thought in the late 1920s/early 1930s felt that the economy was naturally cyclical and would eventually mend itself. Hoover pressed his political base, the producers and manufacturers, to ramp up production. They would have none of it. President Roosevelt took his cue from Keynes’, adding government spending and employment to Federal policy, as a way to pump money into the hands of consumers, which then increased demand for goods and services. For the Great Depression, the Keynesian approach seemed effective while the Say’s approach was not.
Today, many commentators note that corporate America is sitting on large cash reserves, and that they are waiting for consumer demand to strengthen before investing in more production or growth. If that is the case, then more business tax cuts or incentive programs are not likely to speed up the recovery.
As students and citizens, we will do well to consider the conflicting economic theories at work here, and ignore the emotional baggage that hinders civil dialogue.
By B.P.T., on May 12th, 2011
There are a lot of different sides to the NFL lockout, which is on again after an appeal from the NFL was granted to reinstate the lockout that was lifted by a judge, and most of the attention is going towards the owners, the players and the fans. But what about the cities in which these teams are being held? There are a lot of people that have nothing to do with football, or sports, who are going to feel the effect of a lockout for as long as it goes, and the longer it goes, the bigger the hit.
The players and owners are trying to figure out how to split up a staggering $9 billion in revenue between the two sides, and fans are stuck in the middle as they want to see their favorite teams and players, NFL betting players want to lay some wagers, and fantasy football owners would love to be able to schedule their annual draft. But no one is thinking about the local economies that are going to suffer greatly from this work stoppage; the people who work at the stadiums who may not care about the score of the game, but they care if they can put food on their tables. There have been estimations that the lockout is going to take $5.1 billion out of local economies across the country, and in cities like Detroit or Cleveland, that is a massive chunk that they can’t afford to lose.
That is what has happened in today’s age: it’s no longer about the sports. Sport is now a business and it affects many off the field, as much as it does off the field. There are a lot of parties invested in something that could be crippling to the game of football.
|
|
Most Popular Posts