There was an article yesterday, I read it off a link from Yahoo so I'm not sure where it originated, that discussed the fact that economic growth is not resulting in the same amount of oil usage increase as it once did. In fact it predicted that we are coming to a point where overall oil usage will stop increasing and start declining. Now, the only thing about the article that I would question is the time frames.
There is no doubt that the world is leaving the oil age and moving on. Oil will remain plentiful and it is possible that as a reaction to this, prices will drop significantly and lead to short term trend reversal. However, I think the world has finally taken the Who to heart and "won't get fooled again". The use of alternative energy is growing and as it grows it starts to become more affordable. Further, more and more of our brightest will start to consider ways to improve the delivery technology.
The way major changes happen in most things follows a fairly predictable pattern. The beginnings of the change are very small changes in trend. Using these early indicators to predict the timing of the change is almost always wrong because the trends accelerate. Had you considered how long it would take everyone to have cell phones based on the early rate of adoption you would have predicted a much smaller number for 2010 than actually have them. As alternative fuel vehicles, heating systems, etc become more used they will becomes cheaper and more available leading to a spiral of adoption. It is happening and happening faster than most expect.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Magic Wands
Sometimes when I see how media and investors react to economic news, I sometimes think they are all firm believers in Magic Wands. The economy overheated and because of easy credit and some ill advised Government and non-government policy, we found ourselves in a situation where a great amount of apparent wealth disappeared, housing collapsed, companies laid off millions of workers and the Government, whether wisely or not is still to be determined, intervened to ward off total economic collapse.
Now, since the worst of the crisis things have improved, and with any luck we will see some job growth in the near future. Also, many companies (at least the ones that survived) will come out of the crisis leaner and meaner and will be more profitable than before (at least on a margin basis). However, we are not all going to wake up one day and discover it is 2006 again.
We have established a new baseline for the economy and we need to adjust to it. Growth will be from that baseline and it will take us years, baring another bubble, to get back to where we thought we were. Many of the jobs that were shed, are not going to come back due to enhanced productivity (think technology and foreign suppliers). The Government debt is going to be a drag on the economy especially if we don't figure out a way to pay it down at least a little.
The country has taken a heavy hit and it has gotten off the mat but it needs to be careful in how it proceeds. Recovery is happening, but not magically.
Now, since the worst of the crisis things have improved, and with any luck we will see some job growth in the near future. Also, many companies (at least the ones that survived) will come out of the crisis leaner and meaner and will be more profitable than before (at least on a margin basis). However, we are not all going to wake up one day and discover it is 2006 again.
We have established a new baseline for the economy and we need to adjust to it. Growth will be from that baseline and it will take us years, baring another bubble, to get back to where we thought we were. Many of the jobs that were shed, are not going to come back due to enhanced productivity (think technology and foreign suppliers). The Government debt is going to be a drag on the economy especially if we don't figure out a way to pay it down at least a little.
The country has taken a heavy hit and it has gotten off the mat but it needs to be careful in how it proceeds. Recovery is happening, but not magically.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Jobs again
It almost a year since the low points in the Market in 2009 and the questions about the recovery and the pace of market recovery are still open. There is clearly improvement in the economy over what we had, but the real estate market, which fueled so much spending as prices appreciated, has not recovered. In fact, it isn't at all certain that prices are stable. So all that wealth is gone and not likely to come back, at least not quickly and all those construction jobs are also gone and will only come back slowly.
The economy needs a growth industry, and I've been saying here that our best hope is in the energy area if we really promote a switch from foreign energy to domestic energy. Would that by itself be enough? Well it certainly does a number of good things, creating some jobs and keeping some wealth in this country. Jobs, like everything else live on the margins. There is some number of jobs that will exist in almost any economy. These are pretty basic and may vary in number but certain levels of goods and services will always be needed and that represents the core level of jobs. There is also an upper cap on jobs, at least in this country, and that is the number of available workers. Now that number can vary as more workers can be drawn into the work force when jobs are plentiful and salaries are high.
Between those two numbers we have the actual number of jobs. What has to happen, and what seems to be happening, is that we need to create more jobs than we eliminate. If you add a new source of jobs, you have created a positive force without a corresponding negative one. Many of our new industries, especially technology related ones, come at the expense of brick and mortar industries. So an on-line shopping site creates jobs, but probably less jobs than get eliminated as less retail stores are needed. Over time, being more efficient is a great thing, but it can be painful in the short run. There is no doubt that the recession caused companies to really scrub the jobs they had and look for more efficient approaches. Their success will help the recovery but not create jobs as fast as they were lost.
We need to do that energy thing.
The economy needs a growth industry, and I've been saying here that our best hope is in the energy area if we really promote a switch from foreign energy to domestic energy. Would that by itself be enough? Well it certainly does a number of good things, creating some jobs and keeping some wealth in this country. Jobs, like everything else live on the margins. There is some number of jobs that will exist in almost any economy. These are pretty basic and may vary in number but certain levels of goods and services will always be needed and that represents the core level of jobs. There is also an upper cap on jobs, at least in this country, and that is the number of available workers. Now that number can vary as more workers can be drawn into the work force when jobs are plentiful and salaries are high.
Between those two numbers we have the actual number of jobs. What has to happen, and what seems to be happening, is that we need to create more jobs than we eliminate. If you add a new source of jobs, you have created a positive force without a corresponding negative one. Many of our new industries, especially technology related ones, come at the expense of brick and mortar industries. So an on-line shopping site creates jobs, but probably less jobs than get eliminated as less retail stores are needed. Over time, being more efficient is a great thing, but it can be painful in the short run. There is no doubt that the recession caused companies to really scrub the jobs they had and look for more efficient approaches. Their success will help the recovery but not create jobs as fast as they were lost.
We need to do that energy thing.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Useful jobs
For a job to truly be useful it has to produce more than it costs. In today's society, that equation can be extremely difficult.
At one time it was generally simpler. Jobs often had a direct link to production and the amount produced could be fairly easily compared to the cost of the job and a decision made as to whether the job was worthwhile. Of course as everything got more complex, we started to have jobs that while useful in a way, had no clear link to production. These can be considered service jobs and are characterized by things such as accounting, human resources and management. Now, you have to have these things but they are overhead, and have to be supported by the production people who produce value.
Now, there is an equation for these jobs, where the cost of the job can be compared to the loss of production if the job isn't there. Effectively, does a manager get the producers to produce more than it costs to have him/her? For many other specialties, their lack would also hurt production, if producers didn't get paid or bills didn't get collected or new producers weren't hired in a timely fashion.
However, while useful, they do not in and of themselves produce value. We have at times lost sight of this. In fact, if you think about the American economy, service jobs now dominate. So more and more of us are living off the value created by the smaller and smaller number of producers.
Of course in an economy as complex as ours some service employees appear to create value for their firms. Lawyers for example, may book much more in revenue than they get paid for a law firm. So from the law firms point of view they look like producers. However on a macro view they do not produce anything of overall value such as food, raw materials or manufactured goods.
Further compounding the issue is that more and more of the producer jobs are leaving the country. Ultimately I would argue that as a country produces less and less 'real" value, it becomes less wealthy. Now, there are economists who would argue with that premise and it is clearly quite complex to track value streams across the world economy. However, ultimately, if we import a unit of energy, it has to be paid for somehow. We may pay for it by providing a service to the producer, but how long can that last?
If we want to increase the wealth of this country, we need to promote value producing industries and jobs. The most obvious area would be to internalize energy production. Another obvious one is to promote policies that lead to a revitalization of manufacturing in this country. Certainly we want world trade but we want the trade to be of a balanced nature, not that we export much more wealth than we actually create.
At one time it was generally simpler. Jobs often had a direct link to production and the amount produced could be fairly easily compared to the cost of the job and a decision made as to whether the job was worthwhile. Of course as everything got more complex, we started to have jobs that while useful in a way, had no clear link to production. These can be considered service jobs and are characterized by things such as accounting, human resources and management. Now, you have to have these things but they are overhead, and have to be supported by the production people who produce value.
Now, there is an equation for these jobs, where the cost of the job can be compared to the loss of production if the job isn't there. Effectively, does a manager get the producers to produce more than it costs to have him/her? For many other specialties, their lack would also hurt production, if producers didn't get paid or bills didn't get collected or new producers weren't hired in a timely fashion.
However, while useful, they do not in and of themselves produce value. We have at times lost sight of this. In fact, if you think about the American economy, service jobs now dominate. So more and more of us are living off the value created by the smaller and smaller number of producers.
Of course in an economy as complex as ours some service employees appear to create value for their firms. Lawyers for example, may book much more in revenue than they get paid for a law firm. So from the law firms point of view they look like producers. However on a macro view they do not produce anything of overall value such as food, raw materials or manufactured goods.
Further compounding the issue is that more and more of the producer jobs are leaving the country. Ultimately I would argue that as a country produces less and less 'real" value, it becomes less wealthy. Now, there are economists who would argue with that premise and it is clearly quite complex to track value streams across the world economy. However, ultimately, if we import a unit of energy, it has to be paid for somehow. We may pay for it by providing a service to the producer, but how long can that last?
If we want to increase the wealth of this country, we need to promote value producing industries and jobs. The most obvious area would be to internalize energy production. Another obvious one is to promote policies that lead to a revitalization of manufacturing in this country. Certainly we want world trade but we want the trade to be of a balanced nature, not that we export much more wealth than we actually create.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Risky Business
In today's day and age, suppose a Government that has trouble meeting its debt obligations were to simply repudiate them? Now there is some historical precedent for this, the French Monarchy did it a few times, and oddly, they were still able to borrow money. However, in today's market what would it mean?
Clearly, anyone who had lent money to that particular country would lose most if not all of that money. It is of course also possible that various insurance and/or equity markets who had bought or sold risk mitigation for that country would also lose money. In fact, it is more likely that that is where the main damage may occur.
If you think back to the Lehman's Brothers bankruptcy, it also threatened many other firms because the Lehman default's triggered insurance payments. AIG would have been unable to cover their obligations had the Government not stepped in. I haven't done enough research into all the sovereign debt out there, but I suspect many lenders have purchased some sort of insurance to offset possible losses. Further, we most likely have speculators who have purchased instruments that will pay if certain countries default, even though they have no personnel exposure.
This was one of the odd things about the latest financial crisis. Many of these derived financial instruments have become so complex, that very few people really understand all the implications. To some extent they are lottery tickets, sold cheaply on the premise that there will never be a real payout. It is nearly impossible to truly calculate the risk of a sovereign default. Also what is a true default?
Before our current level of sophistication, a sovereign nation could unilaterally make changes to its debt structure and lenders, could sue or live with the changed circumstances. So, when Dubai had its issues a few months ago, it could have simply suspended all payments for a period of time and allowed interest to accumulate until some of the expected income materialized. Of course, this would have dried up Dubai's ability to raise money, but then again maybe not. What it would have done in today's environment is kick off all the default clauses and provisos in all the derived securities that bet for and against that event.
It is likely that since that would be considered a default, payouts would be due even if later all the original debt was repaid at the agreed to interest rate. Clearly, for certain traders, this is a no-lose situation. Of course the insurance reduces their initial returns, and if there is never a default, that money never has a payoff. However, when the lottery does payoff, it really pays off.
For those on the other side of the equation they assumes large liabilities with what they believed to be very low risk, ergo why they get paid so little. If they do have to payout, i.e. Lehman Brothers there is significant risk they won't be able to. Now, allowing institutions that hold assets for pension funds and other depositors to take these risks with company wide exposure is, well, foolish. The fact is that if they lose that bet, they will end up liquidating assets that should have been reserved for those who trusted that institution.
Prohibiting institutions that have any sort of Government regulatory oversight to engage in both behaviors is simply wrong, unless the risky business is shielded.
Clearly, anyone who had lent money to that particular country would lose most if not all of that money. It is of course also possible that various insurance and/or equity markets who had bought or sold risk mitigation for that country would also lose money. In fact, it is more likely that that is where the main damage may occur.
If you think back to the Lehman's Brothers bankruptcy, it also threatened many other firms because the Lehman default's triggered insurance payments. AIG would have been unable to cover their obligations had the Government not stepped in. I haven't done enough research into all the sovereign debt out there, but I suspect many lenders have purchased some sort of insurance to offset possible losses. Further, we most likely have speculators who have purchased instruments that will pay if certain countries default, even though they have no personnel exposure.
This was one of the odd things about the latest financial crisis. Many of these derived financial instruments have become so complex, that very few people really understand all the implications. To some extent they are lottery tickets, sold cheaply on the premise that there will never be a real payout. It is nearly impossible to truly calculate the risk of a sovereign default. Also what is a true default?
Before our current level of sophistication, a sovereign nation could unilaterally make changes to its debt structure and lenders, could sue or live with the changed circumstances. So, when Dubai had its issues a few months ago, it could have simply suspended all payments for a period of time and allowed interest to accumulate until some of the expected income materialized. Of course, this would have dried up Dubai's ability to raise money, but then again maybe not. What it would have done in today's environment is kick off all the default clauses and provisos in all the derived securities that bet for and against that event.
It is likely that since that would be considered a default, payouts would be due even if later all the original debt was repaid at the agreed to interest rate. Clearly, for certain traders, this is a no-lose situation. Of course the insurance reduces their initial returns, and if there is never a default, that money never has a payoff. However, when the lottery does payoff, it really pays off.
For those on the other side of the equation they assumes large liabilities with what they believed to be very low risk, ergo why they get paid so little. If they do have to payout, i.e. Lehman Brothers there is significant risk they won't be able to. Now, allowing institutions that hold assets for pension funds and other depositors to take these risks with company wide exposure is, well, foolish. The fact is that if they lose that bet, they will end up liquidating assets that should have been reserved for those who trusted that institution.
Prohibiting institutions that have any sort of Government regulatory oversight to engage in both behaviors is simply wrong, unless the risky business is shielded.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Perseverance
A lot of times what actually causes failure comes down to two items, resources and perseverance. Very few worthwhile endeavors have an interrupted path to success. Along the way the main enemies are lack of resources and lack of perseverance.
Getting sufficient resources may itself be a matter of perseverance. Let's be realistic, the world is full of naysayers and it gets pretty easy to doubt yourself when a plan doesn't seem to be working. There is no real way to know if everything in a plan is going to work, and since the common belief is that most ventures fail, doubt will appear.
Of course some plans are doomed, and if the plan is based on faulty premises, no amount of resources or perseverance are going to help. However, many well considered and well executed plans do run into snags. You have to believe in the plan in order to persevere. When you go over something in your head again and again, and you still come up with a workable set of circumstances, you need to keep going.
For those who remember their history, we have the example of Admiral Farragut. He is the Civil War Admiral who is famous for responding to someone who questioned his attack plan with the phrase, "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead". Now, in some ways this may seem like a dangerous course of action, but it worked because he knew that the torpedoes at best would cause damage but not enough to stop the attack and conquest of Mobile. Had he waited, the torpedo situation wasn't going to get better and in fact, most likely it would have gotten worse.
Now, the Civil War is a great example of perseverance. There were numerous opportunities for the North to decide to stop. Clearly the early success of the Confederates could easily have led to the North deciding it just wasn't worth it. However, Lincoln persevered and eventually he found a General in Grant who also persevered.
Getting sufficient resources may itself be a matter of perseverance. Let's be realistic, the world is full of naysayers and it gets pretty easy to doubt yourself when a plan doesn't seem to be working. There is no real way to know if everything in a plan is going to work, and since the common belief is that most ventures fail, doubt will appear.
Of course some plans are doomed, and if the plan is based on faulty premises, no amount of resources or perseverance are going to help. However, many well considered and well executed plans do run into snags. You have to believe in the plan in order to persevere. When you go over something in your head again and again, and you still come up with a workable set of circumstances, you need to keep going.
For those who remember their history, we have the example of Admiral Farragut. He is the Civil War Admiral who is famous for responding to someone who questioned his attack plan with the phrase, "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead". Now, in some ways this may seem like a dangerous course of action, but it worked because he knew that the torpedoes at best would cause damage but not enough to stop the attack and conquest of Mobile. Had he waited, the torpedo situation wasn't going to get better and in fact, most likely it would have gotten worse.
Now, the Civil War is a great example of perseverance. There were numerous opportunities for the North to decide to stop. Clearly the early success of the Confederates could easily have led to the North deciding it just wasn't worth it. However, Lincoln persevered and eventually he found a General in Grant who also persevered.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Jobs
There is a lot of consternation about the jobs situation in this country and deservedly so. If you want to restore prosperity, you need to create real sustainable jobs. Now ultimately, this is the role of private industry, but Government policy has to create a climate that is favorable for job creation.
The fastest thing the Government can normally due is spend money on infrastructure improvements. Now, this does create jobs and also fulfills a legitimate Government purpose. Infrastructure is something that has to be paid for out of Government funds.
The idea of reducing taxes to create jobs has some problems. The equation has to be such that the jobs created ultimately create more tax dollars than the incentives cost. I fear that Government in general is unable to fathom this relationship and uses political factors to make the decisions. If our Government could simply make sure that sound business principles were used in all our decisions, we would be on the path to balancing the budget and reducing the deficit.
Very simply, if we simply created incentives to promote the use of domestic energy sources, and required pollution mitigation payments, we would stop exporting wealth and jobs overseas and transfer them back here. Think about a class of vehicles that ran on natural gas and were significantly cheaper to fuel up. Ultimately we would encourage a tremendous boost in building infrastructure to deliver the natural gas to delivery stations and we would create a significant demand in either converting current vehicles or building new ones. How hard is this?
Also, changing our tax system to one that taxes the point of sale instead of the point of manufacture would change much of the incentive involved in exporting jobs. Also, if we could equalize the cost of health care for companies doing business here, via paying for it out of a consumption tax, we would further encourage domestic employment.
These are actually relatively easy things and we just need some leadership to get them going.
The fastest thing the Government can normally due is spend money on infrastructure improvements. Now, this does create jobs and also fulfills a legitimate Government purpose. Infrastructure is something that has to be paid for out of Government funds.
The idea of reducing taxes to create jobs has some problems. The equation has to be such that the jobs created ultimately create more tax dollars than the incentives cost. I fear that Government in general is unable to fathom this relationship and uses political factors to make the decisions. If our Government could simply make sure that sound business principles were used in all our decisions, we would be on the path to balancing the budget and reducing the deficit.
Very simply, if we simply created incentives to promote the use of domestic energy sources, and required pollution mitigation payments, we would stop exporting wealth and jobs overseas and transfer them back here. Think about a class of vehicles that ran on natural gas and were significantly cheaper to fuel up. Ultimately we would encourage a tremendous boost in building infrastructure to deliver the natural gas to delivery stations and we would create a significant demand in either converting current vehicles or building new ones. How hard is this?
Also, changing our tax system to one that taxes the point of sale instead of the point of manufacture would change much of the incentive involved in exporting jobs. Also, if we could equalize the cost of health care for companies doing business here, via paying for it out of a consumption tax, we would further encourage domestic employment.
These are actually relatively easy things and we just need some leadership to get them going.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)