Is Obama Anti-Business or Anti-Markets, Part II

Now that I am back from Germany and done with the spring semester, I plan to post more regularly. In an earlier post, I discussed whether Obama is actually anti-business or anti-markets. The question is relevant because the two are not the same thing. Obama has said he is not anti-business, and offers support things like the bailout of General Motors. But, that act makes him anti-market. An op-ed piece in today's Wall Street Journal written by the governor of Indiana offers another explanation as to why that is the case. He reminds readers that the bailout of GM and Chrysler resulted in unique bankruptcy proceedings--proceedings that caused secured debtors to lose much more than would have been the case under normal bankruptcy procedures. This violation of the "rule of law" is anti market even if it helped two large firms. Once again, when government picks favorites in business they are not being pro-markets. They are also not being pro-business since some businesses are helped and others harmed by the favoritism.

Can democracy, globalization and the nation state co-exist?

Dani Rodrik has an interesting piece in Project Syndacate, that can be found here. He argues that there is a trilemma involving globalization. Three good things are democracy, globalization, and nation-states. Rodrik says that we can have only two out of the three. He uses the Greek situation to elaborate. For globalization to work, either Greece has to give up democracy so the government doesn't provide the social programs the people want or Greece has to give up independence and follow the lead exactly of the bigger EU countries, Germany in particular.

Rodrik raises some interesting points, including a comparison to the US experience of the federal government wresting power away from the states. But Greece can have globalization and its nation state if it hadn't joined the euro zone. Increasing globalization does not require movement to a single currency. Certainly there is a reduction in sovereignty when nations join international groups or free trade areas, but it is a voluntary reduction and limited to certain areas.

Rodrik may prove to be correct. As yet, I am not convinced.

A United States of Europe?

I am in Germany to teach a short-course for a college on economic policy. The current Euro crisis should provide some interesting discussion. There is also an election today in one of the German states that may be interpreted as a judgment on Merkel's focus on Europe rather than on Germany. From the start, the euro was a political rather than an economic move, even though there were economic reasons for moving to a common currency. I think the political motive was to force more political integration. Clearly, all of Europe is not an optimum currency area. Greece is demonstrating that.

Krugman had a piece recently in which he reconsidered whether Greece should pull out of the euro. Earlier, he opposed it on grounds articulated by Barry Eichengreen. I also found Eichengrfeen's analysis persuasive, but, like Krugman, am having second thoughts. Recently, Mankiw also entered into discussion on the issue, with some pertinent comments.

On many occasions when I have visited Europe, I have asked people whether they wanted the EU to eventually be a United States of Europe. Uniformly, the response to that suggestion is horror. Yet, the elites in Europe who helped organize the EU in the early years, and still exist in the governments of major members (France and Germany in particular), want a United States of Europe. The current crisis may push things one way or the other, and I am not certain yet which way.

Basics of a Value-Added Tax

Greg Mankiw's article in today's New York Times provides a good and simple explanation of a value-added tax. He notes that it could be very similar to the flat tax offered by Hall and Rabushka many years ago. However, the flat tax has been offered as a substitute for the current income tax and a value-added tax is usually discussed as a new source of revenue for the government. Any discussion in today's political environment will surely be about extra revenue to reduce the deficit rather than an alternative to the progressive income tax.

Is Obama Anti-Business or Anti-Markets? Part I

Below is an e-mail I sent to Squawk Box this morning after hearing two of the hosts debate whether President Obama's policies are ant-business. In a CNBC interview yesterday, the president said that he was in favor of markets. My message was:

Three comments on the discussion this morning between Joe and Carl about whether the Obama Administration is anti-business. First, the financial firms on Wall Street and business are not one and the same. Obama is correct when he says that the financial sector is to facilitate business. Second, Obama is clearly in opposition to the market system since he wants to use taxes and subsidies to reallocate resources in the economy. Obama is smart and the danger of smart presidents is they think they know better than the market where to invest capital. Third, many business leaders, especially of large corporations, don't favor the operation of the market system. They want tariffs when facing import competition, or tax breaks, or subsidies and so on. Crony capitalism is often favored by business and members of both major political parties.

I will elaborate more later, i.e., when this semester is over.

Daylight Savings Time

I live in West Michigan, which is the western edge of the Eastern Time Zone. Summers are great, with it being light until about 10:00. But, with the earlier move to daylight savings, its been dark in the morning. My wife has often asked whether daylight savings actually saves energy. A recent study by an economist says no--daylight savings causes an increase in electricity usage. For many years, part of Indiana went to daylight saving time and part did not, so there was a natural experiment when the rest of Indiana went to daylight saving time. The result--greater electricity usage in the counties after they went to daylight saving. The counties that had been using daylight saving for some time were the control group. I understand it was Ben Franklin's idea originally, so even Ben could be wrong.

What Happended to Toxic Assets?

This is the most hectic semester I have had since arriving at Hope College. One result is that the quantity of posts to my blog is down. I will try to improve after spring break, during which I will be an expert witness and not catching up on my classes. I feel as if I am following the Japanese auto model--"just-in-time" teaching. I don't recomment it.

On another note. Sen. Dodd has put forward a plan for financial regulation. It made me wonder what ever happened to the toxic assets we heard so much about a year or more ago? A toxic asset is not necessarily a bad asset or a valueless asset. A toxic asset is an asset for which the value is unknown. It may be that the banks and other market participants now know the value of the assets, have written off the bad ones and are comfortable with the good ones. I don't know and haven't heard anything about it.

Another question I have concerns the failure of banks to extend loans. I understand that the number of loans is down. But there could be two reasons--people with a lot of debt already are not applying for loans, or people are applying but banks are turning them down. Actually, it is likely both are partially correct. But banks are more likely to be cautious if they still have toxic assets on their balance sheets, which brings me back to my first question. I am hopeful that recovery will build but am still concerned about some weaknesses that may still exist in the economy.