Posts from — October 2008

Sophia was just reading an article about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve of the United States (and a proposal to double it) and while I knew how much oil was being stored I had no idea about how it was stored, very very cool (from Wikipedia):

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is an emergency fuel store of oil maintained by the United States Department of Energy.
The US SPR is the largest emergency supply in the world with the current capacity to hold up to 727 million barrels (1.156E+8 m3). The second largest emergency supply of oil is Japan’s with a 2003 reported capacity of 579 million barrels (9.21E+7 m3).

The reserve is stored at four sites on the Gulf of Mexico, each located near a major center of petrochemical refining and processing. Each site contains a number of artificial caverns created in salt domes below the surface.
Individual caverns within a site can be up to 1000 m below the surface, average dimensions are 60 m wide and 600 m deep, and capacity ranges from 6 to 37 million barrels (1 to 4.3 million m³). Almost $4 billion was spent on the facilities. The decision to store in caverns was taken to reduce costs; the Dept. of Energy claims it is roughly 10 times cheaper to store oil below surface with the added advantages of no leaks and a constant natural churn of the oil due to a temperature gradient in the caverns. The caverns were created by drilling down and then dissolving the salt with water.

Here’s a great article on the problems with unlimited deposit insurance from Alan Blinder and Glenn Hubbard (via Greg Mankiw’s ‘More Commentary on the Financial Mess‘). One of the interesting parts was about increasingly broad deposit insurance might be one of the reasons that the dollar is rising as savers in other countries with less favorable schemes move their money to the US to keep it secure. This would normally be expected anyway as spooked investors move their money to the more stable US but in this case financial insecurity is spreading from the US to the rest of the world but legislation like this might be one of the factors that money is still pouring into the US:

Third, an unlimited deposit guarantee in the U.S. would pull funds out of other countries, just as Ireland’s guarantee led to an inflow of money into Irish bank offices in the United Kingdom. The Irish-British deposit flow happened on a small scale; but the U.S. is the 800-pound gorilla of the world market. Even amidst all this chaos, money has been flocking to our shores.

Thus we might wind up worsening an odd sort of beggar-thy-neighbor game, causing a “giant sucking sound” as deposits fled other countries for the sanctuary of the U.S. and its FDIC. The implications for our international friends could be enormous. In a misguided attempt to create financial security at home, we might inadvertently make the world a significantly more dangerous place to live.

I’ve been writing a lot about the financial crisis because its a current issue and it’s really exposing some of the underwork of the world financial system but with everyone talking about that and the upcoming US election there is less focus on long term issues. One of these is global warming/environmental destruction, and I just read a BBC article about the newly released Living Planet Report by the WWF (which uses Apture on its site) and about how they are comparing it to the current financial crisis by calling it an ecological credit crunch:

The Living Planet Report is the work of WWF, the Zoological Society of London and the Global Footprint Network.
It says that more than three quarters of the world’s population lives in countries where consumption levels are outstripping environmental renewal. This makes them “ecological debtors”, meaning that they are drawing – and often overdrawing – on the agricultural land, forests, seas and resources of other countries to sustain them. 

He said the more than $2 trillion (£1.2 trillion) lost on stocks and shares was dwarfed by the up to $4.5 trillion worth of resources destroyed forever each year. The report’s Living Planet Index, which is an attempt to measure the health of worldwide biodiversity, showed an average decline of about 30% from 1970 to 2005 in 3,309 populations of 1,235 species.

Really great and timely marketing. And also an important thing to keep in mind and to put things into perspective.

Paul Krugman makes a great argument that the Fed shouldn’t worry too much about stockmarket bubbles because their bursting doesn’t cause the same excessive supply as bubbles in the real economy.

The thing to understand is that a stock market boom is not like a boom in physical investment–say, a boom in condominium construction. That kind of boom depresses future spending because it leaves behind a landscape littered with unsellable condos. But that isn’t quite what happens when stocks surge: When the market value of Croesus.com doubles, that doesn’t mean there will be an overhang of vacant dotcoms weighing down rental rates two years from now. It’s paper gains today, paper losses tomorrow; who cares?

One thing that might potentially be an issue is indirect effects of stock markets on other parts of the economy but that’s for future investigation. One other bit about the article that I found particularly interesting (and amusing) was the following mention of the dangers of excessive indebtedness:

Ah, they say, but what about debt? Shouldn’t Greenspan act to counter the defaults that could accompany a market crash? If consumers go deeply into debt to buy stock or to buy consumer goods because their market gains make them feel rich, this could depress spending later on. But really bad debt overhangs come when businesses (especially real estate developers) overborrow, which is not, as far as I can tell, a big problem in America right now.

Incredible as this sounds now, it wasn’t actually a lack of foresight because the article was written in early 1999 when levels of indebtedness had not yet reached the highs they did over the last 5 years.

A very short and interesting article by Paul Krugman on why having your currency be a Reserve Currency might not be too big of a deal:

What about our ability to borrow in dollars, to sell dollar- denominated bonds to foreigners? Hey, other countries do that too. But our debts are in our own currency! So? We still pay interest on them. True, we could inflate away our foreign debt. But we won’t–and if investors thought we would, they would demand higher interest rates. 

P.s. If you feel like you’ve been seeing a lot about Paul Krugman recently you are absolutely right: I like to learn by reading a lot by the same person at a time so I’m slowly making my way through his writings and academic work. The key thing is to know when you start seeing diminishing returns and read other things and to make sure to pick smart people.

When I first started learning about Development Economics (in Public Policy 184, Poverty and Policies in Developing Economies, which I actually eventually dropped in favor of other things) I was struck by a lecture on the Harrod-Domar model because it was very obvious to me that the model was completely insufficient and overly simplistic. I had already read The Elusive Quest for Growth by William Easterly who basically made fun of people for ever believing this model could accurately describe anything (Easterly sums it up as “GDP growth will be proportional to the share of investment spending in GDP.”). 

When not writing about Sarah Palin or the Presidential Election, most American news sources are focusing on the Financial Crisis the world is going through right now. Most of my readings on the topic have come from Greg Mankiw’s blog via his excellent ‘Commentary on the Financial Mess’ posts which link to recent articles by important Economists from all over the web and has provided an incredibly rich collection of opinions and theories on what is going on in the economy.

These days I spend most of my time listening to The Economist Audio Edition or Podcasts and don’t have nearly enough time to listen to music (though I still make it to concerts – I saw Stereolab at the Fillmore yesterday). Furthermore, this blog is largely focused around academic subjects, but music is still a big part of my life and as such I wanted to post the video for incredible an incredible song by Simone White here:

I heard about it through a very clever and beautiful commercial for the relatively new Audi R8 supercar (which I first saw last summer in Monterey and have seen all over the place since then). Enjoy.

I first read about Cyclically adjusted Price to Earnings Ratio in Greg Mankiw’s post last week (referencing a WSJ article) and thought it was interesting but this week’s Economist article on the matter made me want to post it. Here’s the explanation from the Economist:

In his book, “Irrational Exuberance”, Robert Shiller calculated the cyclically adjusted price/earnings ratio over history. This measure, which takes an average of profits over the previous ten years and adjusts for inflation, is superior to the traditional p/e ratio because profits are highly volatile. In January 2000 the cyclically adjusted p/e on the S&P 500 was 44.3; the previous peak, just before the crash of 1929, was 32.6. That suggested markets had a long way to fall. And share prices did indeed suffer a long period of decline.

And here the gist of why this is a reason for long term optimism from Mankiw:

[T]he Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index is priced at 15 times earnings by the Graham-Shiller measure. That is a 25% decline since Sept. 30 alone. The Graham P/E has not been this low since January 1989; the long-term average in Prof. Shiller’s database, which goes back to 1881, is 16.3 times earnings. But when the stock market moves away from historical norms, it tends to overshoot. 

And a reason as to why investors should be careful about acting on this advice without careful consideration (from the Economist again):

Why does this matter? The existence of a bear market does not preclude the possibility of fantastic returns over shorter periods. Indeed, one striking point about the Dow’s 936-point gain on October 13th was that it climbed more in that one day than it did in the first 85 years of its existence (it was founded in 1896). Two of the very best years in American stockmarket history were 1933 and 1935, right in the middle of the Depression. But bear markets behave rather like Lucy in the Peanuts cartoon strip. Just when Charlie Brown is persuaded to attempt to kick the football, she snatches it away. Just when investors are persuaded the bottom of a bear market has been reached, share prices slump once more.

After overhearing two friends talking about how the money budgeted for the bailout could be used for better things I wanted to post two excerpts from an Economist article on the British banking bailout. Leaving aside the exact details of the US plan the important point to underscore is that there are two sides to the issue of budgeting – government spending and government revenue. While the bailout is clearly a drain on the budget, so is a slowing economy, and a dramatically slowing economy would be an economic nightmare. So spending money to help avoid economic disaster is a good idea, and an approaching recession is the wrong time to bring on budgetary austerity. Next up – getting the details of the bailout as right as possible.

Government Spending:

Such a ballooning in the government’s liabilities may seem ominous, but this is to look at only one side of the public balance-sheet now that the Treasury has turned banker: on the other side stand the assets. [...] In 40 banking rescues studied by Luc Laeven, an economist at the IMF, the taxpayer typically recouped some but not all of their cost. 

Set against this, the stakes are intended to be temporary, and the public purse could profit when the shares are eventually sold. Taxpayers could also make running gains from the overall package, says Ben Broadbent, an economist at Goldman Sachs, a bank. Although the Treasury will have to pay interest on the new gilts it issues to fund the recapitalisation, it will recoup over half of this from the 12% interest its preference shares in the banks will earn. It will also charge fees for the guarantees it is providing on £250 billion of new debt issued by British banks—another part of the rescue package. Putting it all together, Mr Broadbent estimates that the net gain to the exchequer—assuming it does not have to pay out on the guarantees—could be nearly £3 billion a year.

Government Revenue:

Recessions wreak havoc on the public finances by both cutting tax revenues and raising unemployment-related spending. For every percentage point that GDP is lower than expected, public borrowing will be roughly £7.5 billion higher than forecast in the first year, rising to £10 billion higher in the second year, according to the Treasury’s ready reckoner. If the economy were simply to stall in 2008-09 and 2009-10, this could double planned borrowing of £38 billion next year; if output were to contract over the period the outcome would be costlier yet.