Ask an Economist #3

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, there was a credit problem too, but its not the root cause of the problems. It's an accentuating factor.

Europe has its own housing bubble and problems.

I thought differently your opinion is noted and appreciated ! (Though i still believe it is a bubble of the whole economy of specific nations that busted Heavier or first in the housing market .

But can you translate this
It's an accentuating factor.
into forum English ?
Thanks...

In an interview a professor from the London schools of economics said that part of the problem was the fact that the market was global but the regulation authorities national. So they deregulated the market in each nation to attract capital and do not lose it by other markets with more deregulation , to the result of many mistakes happening and the markets worldwide "crashing" or falling due to such deregulation.

Simply the competition between Nations caused them to act unwisely.

Do you agree with this ?


If you think i am asking too many questions you can feel free to tell me , i won't mind if you answer them when and if you have time.:)
 
I thought differently your opinion is noted and appreciated ! (Though i still believe it is a bubble of the whole economy of specific nations that busted Heavier or first in the housing market .

But can you translate this into forum English ?
Thanks...

In an interview a professor from the London schools of economics said that part of the problem was the fact that the market was global but the regulation authorities national. So they deregulated the market in each nation to attract capital and do not lose it by other markets with more deregulation , to the result of many mistakes happening and the markets worldwide "crashing" or falling due to such deregulation.

Simply the competition between Nations caused them to act unwisely.

Do you agree with this ?


If you think i am asking too many questions you can feel free to tell me , i won't mind if you answer them when and if you have time.:)

Trust me, its the housing bubble, not the credit crunch, that's the problem in America. The housing problem helped create the credit crunch, that's why the credit crunch is an additional factor but not the underlying root cause (which again, is the loss of 5 trillion dollars in home values and more to come).

I disagree with the professor at the LSE about the cause for the crisis, as he is pinning the problem not on the housing bubble but on this credit crunch. He is wholly incorrect. Competition, in and of itself, is not going to create unwise actions. Further, I'm not even sure if one can compare regs and deregs across nations and into subgroups of nation and industry given the many differences, its an apples/oranges thing, and have a very meaningful comparison.

If I had to pin down 1 cause of the whole mess, I'm going to go with the change in how we were buying our homes that occured in the very late 1990s and early 2000s. That created a flush of false wealth that made folks feel wealthier, ergo they spent more without realizing that they did not have real wealth increases but paper wealth increases, and when such a ponzi scheme collapses, the paper wealth collapsed back to its real value.
 
BTW, the housing bubble is not bad for everyone. My parents are moving to the US from Norway, so thank God for the drop in housing prices.

Anybody have any idea why the American dollar has increased in value so ridiculously over the course of the financial crisis? You would think the opposite would happen. It is stronger against the Norwegian Krone than it has been for 15 years or so. I was a kid last time it was this strong.
 
Unwinding of the carry trade, Homie. Investors used to borrow dollars (and Yen) cheaply, and invest in emerging economies. This involved selling the borrowed dollars and buying Real or Roubles or Rupees to invest in those countries, causing dollars to depreciate. Now, investors are scared that those investments will tank, so are pulling their money out, and paying back the dollar loans. This means that investors have to buy dollars in order to pay back loans, causing to dollar to strengthen again.
 
Would the invention of subsistence-labor-performing ("farmer") robots be a great boost to the economy?
 
The economy is not failing because of lack of production...

Do you think the housing crisis caused the credit crisis ? Do you think the credit crisis is related by wrong measures taken by states if and when they where advokating deregulation to earn capital/not lose capital by competitors ?
 
The economy is not failing because of lack of production...
Indeed

Would the invention of subsistence-labor-performing ("farmer") robots be a great boost to the economy?
Depends. Are these robots more or less expensive to operate than normal labor? Gotta specify! Time Frame?

Do you think the housing crisis caused the credit crisis ? Do you think the credit crisis is related by wrong measures taken by states if and when they where advokating deregulation to earn capital/not lose capital by competitors ?

Yes, the housing crisis preceeded the credit crisis, and in many ways created it. Because the housing crisis was created by differing standards for loan practices with little to no regulatory oversight in some of these loan practice industries, I believe here its the fault of the regulators sleeping at the wheel.

Not all DeReg in every industry is "bad" or "good". But again, the credit crisis occured BECAUSE of the housing bubble popping.
 
Depends. Are these robots more or less expensive to operate than normal labor? Gotta specify! Time Frame?
Let's say about equally expensive in moderate numbers. (Economies of scale probably apply more to robot workers and repair kits and power supplies for them than to humans.) I'm not sure what "Time Frame?" means as a question. How long they take to pay back their own cost? When they're invented? Something else?
 
Let's say about equally expensive in moderate numbers. (Economies of scale probably apply more to robot workers and repair kits and power supplies for them than to humans.) I'm not sure what "Time Frame?" means as a question. How long they take to pay back their own cost? When they're invented? Something else?

Recoup cost would be a decent one. It's probably not an efficient use of resources considering most farming is already wholly automated, and the parts that aren't are highly difficult to automate, hence the use of poorly paid migrant workers to pick strawberries.
 
I've lurked here a long time, but I figure it's probably time to stop sitting in the shadows as much.

I ended up sleeping through my economics class way too much back in high school, and right now I'm in between semesters due to a change of location. I'm just curious if anyone had any advice on books to pick up on economics to get some fundamentals down, and maybe then some. I know the bare basics like supply and demand, but over the past year or so my interest has shot up a good bit.
 
JH, did going to GMU give you hookups to jobs in D.C. considering its close location to the city?
Edit: Are you familiar with San Jose State's econ program?

Secondly, Mise, could you try again (or JH, or someone else) to explain why the dollar has increased so greatly in value over the course of the financial crises. I didn't really follow your logic in your previous post.

Also, does anyone have any ideas of whether the dollar will be coming down anytime soon? I need to transfer money from Norway in early january, and I just hope the dollar drops before then.
 
JH, did going to GMU give you hookups to jobs in D.C. considering its close location to the city?
Edit: Are you familiar with San Jose State's econ program?

Secondly, Mise, could you try again (or JH, or someone else) to explain why the dollar has increased so greatly in value over the course of the financial crises. I didn't really follow your logic in your previous post.

Also, does anyone have any ideas of whether the dollar will be coming down anytime soon? I need to transfer money from Norway in early january, and I just hope the dollar drops before then.

I think the dollar increased because it got cheap, and therefore it could be cheaply bought, and investors overseas thought they saw an opportunity. My guess.

As to your first question, I came up to DC just for graduate school at GMU. I didn't have any job when I first came up. I found out about an opening in the DOJ's antitrust division through my department, and one of my professors knew the person who would be my supervisor. I don't think I needed any help other than knowing that the position was open, but I'm sure their relationship didn't hurt. So I did get my foot into the door of the government through GMU's economics program, and that professor is on my Christmas Card list. I switched jobs after 3 years because a local headhunter called me about an opportunity that I didn't know had opened up in the DOJ because I was applying for jobs at the GS 11-12 range, and the position the headhunter wanted me to try for was a GS 13-15 range (the highest on the govt payscale).

So I guess both jobs I had a little help and luck to get me into the door. But your interview is what makes or breaks you, once you get in, and of course your performance keeps you there.
 
JH, did going to GMU give you hookups to jobs in D.C. considering its close location to the city?
Edit: Are you familiar with San Jose State's econ program?

Secondly, Mise, could you try again (or JH, or someone else) to explain why the dollar has increased so greatly in value over the course of the financial crises. I didn't really follow your logic in your previous post.

Also, does anyone have any ideas of whether the dollar will be coming down anytime soon? I need to transfer money from Norway in early january, and I just hope the dollar drops before then.

Long-term exchange rates, longer than say a day or two, are determined by relative supply and demand for goods in the two countries. The United States got hit hard by the crisis, but not quite as bad as Europe/Asia (in comparison). So really it is not the US currency appreciating, it is due mostly to a poor situation and a lack of demand abroad. You can think of it as European and Asian currencies depreciating against the dollar.
 
I think the dollar increased because it got cheap, and therefore it could be cheaply bought, and investors overseas thought they saw an opportunity. My guess.

It got expensive because it was cheap. Now do you understand?
 
Do you think the SEC will suspend the mark-to-market rule?

And if they do, do you think it will be a good thing?
 
Secondly, Mise, could you try again (or JH, or someone else) to explain why the dollar has increased so greatly in value over the course of the financial crises. I didn't really follow your logic in your previous post.

I'll give it another go :D

Imagine Bank A lends at a rate of 3% per year, while Bank B pays 6% interest on savings accounts. If you borrowed $1,000 from Bank A and put it into a savings account with Bank B, you would pay $30 a year in interest to Bank A, and receive $60 from Bank B, thereby making a profit of $30 per year. Now, obviously, banks within the same country wouldn't ever do this, because if they pay more on deposits than they receive in interest, they lose money. But bank's interest rates are guided by the country's central bank's base rate, such that the rates they lend at and the rates they pay on deposits hover around the central bank's base rate.

In the US, the Fed dropped rates massively after the dot-com bubble burst earlier this decade. Since then, interest rates in the US have been much lower than interest rates elsewhere. Investors used the logic above to borrow money from US banks at a very low rate and invest the money in countries with higher returns. For example, they might borrow at 3%, and invest in emerging economies such as Brazil, India, China, Russia, and Eastern Europe, where there are many investment opportunities and the prospect of a nice fat return.

So, for example, they go to a bank, and borrow $1,000. In order to invest this in, for example, Brazil, they have to convert the $1,000 into Brazilian Real. Lets say the exchange rate is 3 Brazilian Real per 1 US Dollar. This means that 1 USD will buy 3 BRL. In other words, in order to change $1,000 into BRL, you are in effect paying USD1,000 for BRL3,000. You're buying BRL and selling USD. This means that the US Dollar depreciates (selling means less demand and more supply) and the BRL appreciates (buying means more demand and less supply).

This was the basis of the carry trade - borrow Dollars and Yen, and invest in more lucrative countries. It meant that the Dollar and Yen depreciated relative to most other currencies.

Now, however, investors are worried that emerging economies are going to get hit pretty hard from the global recession, and are pulling their money out. There's also finding it difficult to borrow from US banks, for obvious reasons, and those that have borrowed are worried about banks calling in those loans. So they've started unwinding those positions. This means selling Brazilian Real and buying US Dollars, meaning that Dollars appreciate and Real depreciates.

That's also why the Yen went up too.

What JH is saying about other countries depreciating even further than the Dollar is also true, though. The US Dollar is still the world currency, despite the HUGE government borrowing (public debt is 80% of GDP now!!). Investors just have faith in the Dollar, much more so than the pound or the Australian dollar. The Euro is regarded as fairly safe too, but the dollar more so.
 
Do you think the SEC will suspend the mark-to-market rule?

And if they do, do you think it will be a good thing?
There was a panel discussion on the topic Oct. 29th with SEC chair Christopher Cox. The consensus among the panelists was that the current market crisis faced by financial institutions was not precipitated by fair value accounting though former chair of the FDIC William Isaac was highly critical and said historical cost accounting measures were much more accurate. They did say that using the method is procyclical so it accelerates write downs as well as write ups.

The next roundtable will be November 21st and they'll be taking public comments on their website if you'd like to post an opinion. I have by suggesting a modified mark to market which is a rolling average. This way you take out the cyclical nature of the assets.

Bottom line is Christopher Cox has no intent on changing the rule.
 
Mise, your argument would be valid if and only if the the central banks of the US and Brazil were trying to maintain a constant 1:3 ratio in their money supplies. Even then the argument would have problems. We are talking fiat money here, and at present everyone is guessing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom