The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Month: April 2010

The American Death Wish

(Kicking this back to the top, it’s eternal, particularly in light of the continued efforts to spin health care reform.)

I’ve been struggling with how to write this post for quite some time. It’s the conversation you have to have with a friend where you have to say “it’s nice that you’re trying as hard as you can George. I even believe you are, but it doesn’t matter. Because George, your best just isn’t good enough.”

Or, as Captain Jack Sparrow would put it, all that matters is what a man can do and what a man can’t do.

Sometimes the world doesn’t grade us on a curve. You need to jump a fence, and you can’t. You need to climb a rock face, and you aren’t good enough. You’re running away from a bear, and you don’t run fast enough. And now you’re dead. You wanted to get into a good grad school, but you don’t have the grades or test scores. You’re in a fight, and the other guy wins, and you wind up on the ground and he puts the boots to you and you’re crippled for life. You tried “your best”, but you lost and you’re going to pay the price for losing for the rest of your life. Maybe you lost because he fought dirty, and you’d rather take a chance of being crippled for life than kick someone in the balls. Maybe you lost because he trained harder than you, and you’d rather go have a drink with your friends.

Or maybe you needed to pay for health care, and you didn’t have the money, and someone you loved died. And they died because you didn’t have the money, and because your country didn’t have universal health care. And maybe you always worked as hard as you could, and you campaigned for health care with all your heart. It doesn’t matter, your child, your wife, your husband—they’re still dead. Your best wasn’t good enough.

Now this is where America is. This is the real world. The United States in aggregate has been living beyond its means for over 30 years now. You have been shipping the real economy overseas. Ordinary families have been going in debt. The government has been going in debt. You’ve been voting yourself lower taxes and not paying for infrastructure reinvestment, or education, or anything else that matters, really. You’ve been spending too much money on guns, not enough on butter. You’ve been pushing the bill off into the future.

And whenever I write about what needs to be done to fix this—simple things like universal healthcare, which we know for a fact reduces health care costs by 1/3, because it has worked for every single other country that’s ever done it, people come out of the woodwork and they tell me “that’s not politically feasible.” Or perhaps I suggest a 55 mile an hour speed limit “that’s not feasible”. Or spending significantly less on the military since half the world’s military spending is a bit overboard. “That’s not politically feasible.” Or raising taxes, “that’s not feasible”. Or… but why go on, the list is endless.

Then Obama comes out with a Stimulus bill which simply will not do the job.  It is not big enough.  It is not well constructed enough.  It has no vision.  It won’t work.  This isn’t really in question, even their own report(pdf), which has the thumb heavily on the scale, shows it won’t work if you take the time to look at the job charts.

A lot of people think this is some academic debate that doesn’t matter in the real word, like “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”. It’s not, it’s deadly practical. The US is in severe decline, it is past the point where any other country would have flamed out and had an economic collapse (Argentina collapsed with better numbers than the US has now, for example). Because of America’s privileged position in the world, it’s been able to stagger on.

Now folks can say “Ian those things aren’t necessary, I think the following steps will fix it” and that’s fine. Could be I’m wrong. Obviously I don’t think so, or I wouldn’t write what I write, but hey, plenty of people have been dead certain they were right, and dead wrong.

But what gets me is that so often what I hear is “that isn’t politically feasible. We can’t do that”. Now, by can’t they don’t mean “those things are impossible” or “we don’t have the means”, what they really mean is “we won’t do them, because they would be hard or they’re outside our ideological comfort zone.”

Fair enough. But if those things are necessary, and if you don’t do them, then the consequence is going to be catastrophe. I don’t mean disaster. New Orleans was a disaster, and it wasn’t enough to wake America up. The current financial crisis was a disaster, and so far it’s looking like it wasn’t enough to convince people that real fundamental changes are needed.

So because no one will do what is necessary, catastrophe will happen. What I mean by this is a severe decline in the US standard of living, probably between 20% to 40%, starting in 4 to 6 years and taking place for a decade. Might happen sooner if folks keep refusing to do what needs to be done to fix the financial crisis and stop it from turning into a worldwide Great Depression.  Even before it happens, you’re going to see real wages declining for Americans while their assets collapse in price.

To see what a precipitous decline in standard of living is like, read up on Russia’s history in the 90’s. A lot of people will die of starvation, of cold, of heat, of lack of medical help and from violence.

That’s just the way it’s going to be. Because while there are no problems that America has that America can’t fix, there also appear to be no problems America has that America is willing to fix properly. And it doesn’t matter why. It just doesn’t matter. The bear doesn’t care why you couldn’t run fast enough when it mauls you to death. When the economy finally goes into full bore collapse, when all the bills come due and everyone decides to stop paying Americans to consume, it won’t matter why Americans thought they could suspend the economic laws of gravity forever and live beyond their means for decades.

It just won’t matter. You can either do what it takes to fix the problems or you can’t. If it’s true that you can’t, then I quite seriously, sadly, and with utmost sincerity suggest that you either start learning how to survive in a societal meltdown, or you get out, or you hope that your number comes up in the next few years so you don’t have to pay the bill that comes due when people think they can live in fantasy land, on credit, forever.

America elected Barack Obama. He’ll have, essentially, two chances to fix things. He’s failing the first one already, with his botched stimulus bill and that’s going to be disastrous. If he fails the second one, that’ll be catastrophe.

So I sure hope that, yes America can.

(Originally posted January 18, 2009 at FDL.  It’s pretty clear now that, no, America can’t.)

How Futures Affect the Price of Oil

Since oil prices are being discussed again, I am re-posting this article from July 23rd, 2008 on how oil prices are actually determined.

Oil Barrel

Much as I hate to disagree with Krugman, his thesis that oil futures have no effect on oil prices is one that I believe is incorrect. On the face of it Krugman should be right — why should a bet on the future direction of oil prices have any effect on the price today? If I bet it’ll go up 10 bucks in a week and you bet it won’t, and at the end of the week we settle that bet, did that have any effect on the price of oil? Of course not. And, essentially (but not quite) that’s what futures and options do. Oh, with futures you can take delivery, but most people don’t, they close out the contract before it comes due. (Because what are you going to do when the tanker pulls up and wants to offload that crude oil? Hmmmm?)

But, in fact, the oil market doesn’t operate like normal futures markets. Let’s take Brent oil, which is the benchmark price used for most European, African and Middle Eastern oil. There is no actual spot market for Brent. A basic contract for Brent, called Dated Brent, indicates that the seller can deliver oil anytime during a specified month, and has to give 21 days notice to the buyer. In other words, a basic Brent contract is already a futures contract in some key aspects. (Mabro, 66). If the price increases, you’ve made money.  And if it declines, in effect, you’ve just lost money.

On top of Dated Brent, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran all use futures markets to determine the price charged to actual physical customers in Europe for oil. They take the Brent Weighted Average (BWAVE), a weighted index of futures on a given day, and use it to determine the price. (Mabro, 68-9). So the futures market is directly influencing the price of actual oil. They do this because, ironically, the old spot markets were very subject to price squeezes and futures markets, being much larger and more liquid, with more participants, were seen as harder to manipulate.

Now because of how arbitrage works, and because Brent oil can often be substituted for other types of oil, the price of Brent is hardly going to substantially differ from other types of oil. If it does, arbitrageurs will step in and close the difference.

All of which is to say, as best I can determine, yes, futures prices do factor into the actual price of oil. The “spot” market does not exist separate from the futures market in all cases, indeed, strictly speaking there isn’t even a Brent spot market in existence. The price is determined by futures or dated contracts that have features in common with futures.

Now, if a huge amount of speculation is driving up futures prices, which it is, that will feed back directly into the price of oil. So if you want to reduce the price of oil, decreasing the amount of speculative activity is a good idea. The Saudis, when they claim that speculators are partially to blame, aren’t being disingenuous, they’re telling a truth. Of course, it’s also true that futures markets have an effect on oil prices because the Saudis, among others, set up the market that way. Yet, if they were to change the pricing they’d simply move the speculation to the sort of physical storage that Krugman and others see little or no sign of. The effect is unclear, on the one hand it’s a smaller more illiquid market. On the other hand, you have to actually take delivery of the oil and hold onto it, and there’s only so much oil storage in the world, while the numbers of futures contracts which can be sold is theoretically infinite.

In general liberals should be for regulation of futures and options markets; for regulation of derivatives markets as a group. They do serve a legitimate purpose for hedging, but when they become much larger than needed for hedging, their original purpose tends be lost and they become a casino. Hedgers require some speculators to make the market, but they don’t require as many as they’re getting.

This doesn’t mean that speculators are responsible for the majority of the price increases in oil and gasoline. They aren’t. Fundamental supply and demand considerations are causing the price increases. Speculation, however, is making the rise more rapid than it would be if just driven by fundamentals alone. The easiest way to see a fairly quick drop in the price of oil is to crack down on speculation. However, such a drop will be temporary, not permanent. Until the fundamental problems of demand and supply are dealt with, oil prices will continue their long steady rise. That rise is a good thing, in the same sense that feeling pain when you’re on fire is a good thing – because it tells you “stop this behaviour”.

But having someone pouring oil on the fire while you’re trying to get out of it isn’t helpful, and that’s what speculators are doing. It’s very profitable for many of them to do so, but there’s no particular reason society should allow them to profit from the pain of others.

The Non Debate Between Krugman and Johnson

So, the latest kerfuffle is between Krugman and Simon Johnson. Johnson wants the banks broken up as a way of making a new crisis better (or at least getting rid of “too big to fail”), Krugman notes that in the Great Depression, with lots of banks, there was still a crisis.

The answer is that too big to fail banks are a huge problem, because they massively increase moral hazard, concentrate market power too highly, and concentrate political power too much.  They have to go.  Johnson is right.  I should add that keeping control of the size of banks was part of what Glass-Steagall, the bill created in the Great Depression to stop another bank collapse from hapening, did.  The folks who created it knew what they were doing.

However Krugman is right in the sense that just reducing the size of banks isn’t enough by itself, it has to be coupled with all sorts of other changes and a regulatory apparatus which will actually enforce those rules.

Reduce the size of the banks.  It has to be done. The fact that it is not sufficient in and of itself does not mean it isn’t a necessary step.

Radio Interview with Ian Welsh by Ken Rose

Last Monday I was on the radio with Ken Rose.  We discussed the underpinnings of the US political economic system.  You can listen here.

The Oil Limit On This Recovery

This is why the US can’t have nice economies. Story 1, Thesis:

The FTSE All-World equity index rose 0.5 per cent, just shy of a fresh 18-month high, and commodities rallied after reports showed manufacturing in China during March continued to expand and a survey of Japanese business confidence was less downbeat than forecast. Factory activity in europe also registered faster growth.

Story 2, Antithesis:

Oil prices surged on Thursday to a fresh 18-month high, near $85 a barrel, bolstered by signs of strong growth in manufacturing across the world, particularly in China.

Almost $85/barrel, and this isn’t a good economy yet, not even close.  Last time, as oil pushed $150, the economy cracked under the pressure.

Notice also that China is getting the recovery far more than the US.

It is not, and will not be possible for the US to have an actual good economy for any length of time, or even at all (as opposed to a mediocre economy) until the oil bottleneck is broken.

Period.

Failure to put in place policies to break this bottleneck, as I said at the beginning of the Obama administration, meant that even if their otherwise inadequate policies worked, success would quickly lead to failure.

Page 4 of 4

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén