From bad science department: environmental impact of walking.

I often lament the lack of common sense in many scientists. Today's exhibit is going to be about a crazy piece of research which was even enthusiastically discussed by Freakonomics blog in Be Green: Drive followed up by More Analysis of the Environmental Impact of Walking vs. Driving. The researchers tried to calculate the carbon footprint of walking 1.5 miles versus driving 1.5 miles. Depending on how bad your diet is, walking could generate more carbon. One author then even went as far as recommend driving instead as more environment friendly.

Let me make a few observation which firmly put all of that research into mad science department.

• Worrying about the carbon footprint of human metabolism is silly for two reasons. First, unless you want to consider killing humans, we cannot do much about metabolism itself. It continues even while we sleep. Second, this carbon footprint comes mostly from food production, so we should work on making food production cleaner, not stop walking around, as the paper seems to suggest.
• Among those who try to achieve a greener lifestyle, walking is not considered an alternative to driving. Environmentally friendly alternatives to driving are living closer to work, taking commuter trains and using bicycles (which are 3-5 times more efficient than walking).
• People need exercise to stay healthy. That's why people should take a walk instead of driving (that, and fresh air).
• Even if all of us walk all day long, we will only increase the pollution levels by a minuscule amount.

Better way to stimulate the economy.

Leaving aside my doubts about the fairness of the currently proposed stimulus packages, government could still justify executing them if they were effective in helping the economy. Here I will try to rationalize why they won't be, and propose a much more effective and ethical way to spend taxpayer money on economic improvement.

First let's recognize that recessions have both desired and undesired effects on the economy. Recessions happen when the rate at which non-viable businesses die temporarily exceeds the rate at which new business is created. The increase in the destruction rate can be set off by many different reasons, but remember that that rate is never zero even in the best of times, and this destruction is both necessary and healthy. The unhealthy (undesirable) effects are the self-reinforcing negative feedback loops that usually accompany recessions - and these effects are mostly psychological.

Consider this example. Let's suppose people think the country is in a recession. Naturally, they expect job cuts and start worrying about their own security. In a country like USA loss of a job is a pretty severe blow to most families - you lose medical insurance, and unemployment assistance is only available for a short time. Therefore, anyone worried about their job naturally restricts their spending and tries to save as much as possible to protect themselves. If half of the families in US try to cut their spending by just 5%, a lot of the industries that rely on discretionary and semi-discretionary income could see huge drops in revenues, up to 50%. This may happen even if the actual unemployment rate does not increase at all, purely due to the fear. Of course, as revenues fall, this fear of job loss becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as businesses contract and lay off workers. From here on, this becomes a self-reinforcing feedback loop. And that is the part of a recession that is not justified by the economic fundamentals and is entirely undesirable. Businesses that are viable in normal times suddenly find themselves bankrupt, and so on.

The idea behind stimulus based on creating arbitrary government projects is to pick up the slack in spending that workers who are unemployed (or insecure) have caused, and thus help healthy businesses live through the downturn. This is where things get tricky, however. This spending-for-the-sake-of-spending stimulus idea was not bad in the 1930s, or even 1950s, when most of the income was spent on necessities like food, and not a whole lot of spending could be called fully discretionary. A lot of decrease came from the people who actually become unemployed, and therefore the negative feedback was weaker (since the purely psychological component was much smaller).

Today, the economy looks much different. With 70% of it being in the service sector, the discretionary spending is a very big fraction of total, and it is much easier for people to cut their expenses. This means that the psychological negative feedback is much stronger than that driven by pure financial fundamentals. The stimulus now is supposed to pick up the tab not only for those who are out of funds, but also for those who have money but decided to willingly withdraw from the excessive consumption. Trying to counter that consumer withdrawal with government spending is like pissing against the wind, or shoveling against an avalanche. You achieve little, and risk getting yourself in trouble.

Instead, government should try to directly attack the purely psychological component of the negative feedback loop. How do you do that? By reducing the incentive to save for the rainy day.

People are worried that without the jobs, there would be no medical insurance and no food or housing for their families. Government could just give a blanket guarantee on these things and eliminate most of these worries entirely. It would have a lot more effect on the economy than direct government spending on random projects, like in Obama's plan. It would also cost a lot less.

To understand the scale of the numbers involved, remember that Obama's universal healthcare plan is supposed to cost additional 100$ billion a year. So if we took just the original TARP money we could eliminate all healthcare worries in the country for 4 years. Remember that Fed and the government already given guarantees worth over 10$ trillion dollars to the banking sector. Imagine how much less money would we need if we simply guaranteed food stamps and housing stamps for anyone who gets laid off? I bet that would do a lot more good than just doing something for the sake of spending money.

That would also be a more ethical way to use taxpayer funds, since no money would go to the private sector, and even government itself would get a very small windfall, since most of these social guarantees could be provided by existing agencies like Medicare without major increases in funding.

Why TARP #2 will still look like theft.

As Fed has become powerless (and all but irrelevant) in the recent months, the powers that be have been trying fiscal measures. The original TARP has now been recognized by most as a failure, mostly because the money pretty much went to line up the pockets of the bankers at virtually no upside for the taxpayer. See for example how Merrill Pay Was Down Only Slightly in 2008 From 2007 Levels. At the same time, most people don't realize how close the whole financial system was to a complete breakdown (as in, no ATMs, no credit cards working) in the October of 2008. It is quite likely that TARP has prevented that event. So even though the plan resembled theft much more than a rescue mission it did do some good.

Now we have Obama's proposed 825$ billion stimulus that is being debated in Congress; and on paper it looks better, since money seems to be intended to go to various 'productive' projects like education, infrastructure maintenance, etc.

I already wrote in the previous post about my distrust for any centrally planned initiatives, and about the dangers of fiscal recklessness, but for the moment I want to leave these aside and present you with a little piece from Bloomberg about how government projects actually work in practice: Hidden Bonuses Enrich U.S. Government Contractors. Here comes the choice cut:

...the government spent $368.4 billion on all contracts in 2008, and Republican Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn estimates that about $100 billion of that was wasted.

US government actually managed to dwarf the numbers that caused recent outrage about Wall Street bonuses: 16$ billion in bonuses, compared to unknown trillions of taxpayer money spent on maintaining the financial system alive.

That is why I don't believe Obama's TARP will be more ethical than Paulson's. Money is still going to line up the pockets of the bureaucrats, just slightly different ones.

There is a way to effectively spend money for economy stabilization, but it is not what the corrupt politicians in Washington are doing. We could have much more bang for the buck spending this money where it really helps, but I probably should write a separate post about it.

On Krugman and Keynes and why fiscal stimilus will not make our economy better.

I don't want to say Krugman's post named The greatness of Keynes is outright wrong, but it is at least controversial, and I think Krugman should know better.

Krugman argues for massive fiscal intervention in the form of 'make work' programs. Here is the relevant part where Krugman responds to critics saying that market knows better:

That is, if the private sector wouldn’t have created a job on its own, that job shouldn’t have been created — whereas the real choice is between having workers doing something and being uselessly, destructively unemployed.

There are two problems with Krugman's logic. First, it isn't really Keynesian. Second, Keynes may have actually been wrong, too.

Let me address the second point first, because it is much more important. The key question is, why do we think it is more productive to put people to work doing something, rather than be unemployed? This may seem counter intuitive, but think about it this way. By asking government to step in and create projects just to get people employed, we are effectively moving to central planning as opposed to profit-motivated resource deployment. As so many governments throughout the history have demonstrated, central planning has a disturbing tendency to get things spectacularly wrong. So if you let government decide what to do, you run a big risk of wasting not only human resources, but also a lot of natural, financial and social resources. Whereas unemployed people represent only a temporary loss of human resource.

Remember that the main argument against central planning is not that it's bad itself (when the right decision are made by decision makers, central planning is actually very very effective) but because when it does direct things in wrong direction, the failures are monumental and absolutely disastrous for the society involved. So the argument for market-based decision making is that while it may not be perfectly efficient, at least it avoids the biggest screw-ups.

What Keynes was arguing is that sometimes companies are unable to deploy X amount of resources to produce Y amount of value because Y is underpriced in the market due to liquidity concerns. In other words, that is unprofitable because Y < X due to liquidity concerns only. If liquidity adjustment is Z, and we assume that X < Y + Z, then theoretically government should step in and stimulate the economy, since government can be less worried about liquidity. While there is certainly truth in this, I still wouldn't immediately say it's a good idea to actually try this in practice. This essentially means that your government should be smart enough to figure out what the actual value of X and Z are, and then deploy resources correctly. That is very tricky thing in practice. Market may be saying that Z is large (large liquidity preference) or it may simply be saying that X is unreasonable (workers want salaries they cannot get) and government probably would never tell one from another. Free market eventually would. So while Keynes had the right ideas, falling back on central planning is not the answer.

I would also argue that our current financial crisis is, in fact, the result of central planners deciding that it's a good idea to force debt on people and companies by endlessly 'stimulating' them with cheap credit. Which brings me to my first point, that Krugman's solution is not exactly Keynesian either. Keynes (I think) argued that when times are good you should run a surplus so that when times are bad you could use it (and maybe some more) on stimulus. United States has only had surplus for 4 years out of the last 40. In fact, the last half century represented non-stop stimulation of USA economy, and the mandate has been used up. The fact that economy is contracting nonetheless shows that stimulation no longer works, and should not be tried. Instead, focus should be on brining transparency into the markets and preserving the trust into the rule of law and value of currency.

Understanding the recent dollar strength.

As American economy is breaking down like a 1986 Oldsmobile, some people are wondering why the dollar has been strengthening so much, and whether it is just a weakness in Euro, Yen, etc, that we see.

My opinion - it's real dollar strength, not just euro weakness. But it is very temporary.
Let me explain.

In the last 2 decades, money has been flowing into BRIC, lots of dollars, that were converted to local currencies. In order to keep their currencies down, BRIC started to buy dollars at an ever accelerated rate, now approaching 90$ billion per month.

Now enter financial crisis. As investors realize that their BRIC companies are going to turn into smoking craters and the notoriously corrupt 3rd world government may just confiscate all their money, investors pull out of emerging world.

So what we have is that suddenly many private investors flock back to the political stability of the dollar. At the same time, BRIC continues to buy dollars due to the force of sheer inertia (and they still have trade surplus).

What's important to realize is this whole process is temporary. Private flight cannot continue for too long, and will stop in a few months. Also, Foreign Central Banks can only buy dollars with money made from selling stuff to us. As soon as real consumer depression hits in US, that money flow will wither out and die and central banks will have no choice but to withdraw their dollar.

Now combine this with ever more reckless fiscal policy of US government, and we are setting ourselves up for the dollar crash of epic proportions, some number of months ahead. And by epic I mean, 50% drop within a span of 1 month would not be unrealistic.

You cannot take pictures here.

You cannot take pictures here.
Have you ever been told this while trying to make a photo of a friend in a museum, a shop, or an office? More likely than not, you were bullied.
Andrew Kantor's Legal Rights of Photographers is a very nice summary of everything you need to know about law and photos. And it turns out, you can take pictures pretty much anywhere you damn want, and also, you can publish pretty much all of these photos.

Must read for anyone who owns a camera - and who doesn't?

When policy-makers speak in an empty forest, do they make a sound?

This weekend we had a very fine illustration of an important truth: every word said by politicians and journalists is a lie more likely than not.

By all looks, it should have been very important: after all, G-7 summit itself spoke of potential currency intervention, asserted that it would not tolerate a weak dollar, and French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde even went as far as to call this a "turning point" and a major policy change.

Look, if this really was a policy change, and a turning point of some significance, then this is the kind of stuff which makes currency rates jump by 10% or more in day.

But in fact, after the announcement, dollar has done nothing but continue its usual fluctuations around the all-time low. This, of course, means that when politicians - even of the highest level - speak, no one thinks it is worth listening anymore.

Of course, the press either cannot comprehend or doesn't want to admit that market fluctuations are just that - random fluctuations. So, as usual, the press makes itself look clinically insane by simultaneously asserting that Dollar rebounds after G7 meeting and Dollar remains on backfoot after G7 meeting. Both articles are from the same newspaper (Forbes) and are published within 25 minutes of each other.

This whole farce underscores that the real reason for the credit crunch and liquidity problems is that lies and deceit are now in every part of the financial system. The reason Fed has been and remains so impotent in fighting the credit crunch, despite its unprecedented, almost trillion-dollar sized intervention, is that Fed's actions do nothing to restore the trust and honesty in the system. In fact, Fed's intervention has done nothing but help the banks further hide the truth. And as a result, it is doing nothing but prolong the crisis.