Monday, February 08, 2010
About those EV1 charging stations
Yesterday's NY Times included this story about the new Tesla electric car. The article noted: "A few blocks from the Tesla Motors dealership here is one of California's charging stations for electric vehicles. But the Tesla Roadster, just the car that planners had in mind when the statewide network was conceived, cannot be charged there." Yup, these stations are all over the State and they are relics. They were put there by industrial policy makers who wrongly bet that many of us would be driving a GM EV1. Things did not work out that way.
The joys of getting governments (politics) involved in picking green winners is now a staple. But not from Tea Party hoi polloi, but rather from captains of industry and Ivy League brainiacs.
Friday, February 05, 2010
Do it in public
Today's WSJ includes "Bucks Populi: Making Democracy A Going Conern in Kiev ... Rent-a-Crowd Entrepreneurs Find People Fast to Cheer or Jeer for $4 an Hour." No one can be shocked that there is money in politics or gambling at Rick's. It is only a question of whether the rent-seekers and the rent-extractors do the dance in public or not. Given those options, the choice is clear.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Transit-oriented development?
Will more arrivals be by limo or by subway? Who cares? LA's MTA, always short of funds and always threatening to cut bus service, owns the land.
Yes, you cannot make this stuff up.
Economic thinking via YouTube
Teaching about markets can be great fun. It is all common sense to some, but obscure or exotic (or worse) to others. The video captures this exquisitely.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Shoes dropping
How will Climategate play out? Look at this from The Guardian.
H/T The Browser.
Monday, February 01, 2010
No mystery to the mood swing
Wendell Cox discusses the high-speed rail boondogle ("The Runaway Subsidy Train") in today's WSJ and I cannot imagine that these investments can make anyone beyond the Baptists and bootleggers (greens and construction interests) involved (thank you, Prof. Yandle) less gloomy. I can imagine that they signal, instead, that policy makers are confused and spenders are in charge.
In this week's Becker-Posner blog, Judge Posner writes about subsidies and deficits. He ends with this:
There is an enormous amount of idle productive capacity in the U.S. economy at present. There is thus a case, as liberal economists such as Paul Krugman keep urging, for further stimulus spending. The problem is that such spending is irresponsible unless coupled with a credible commitment to repay, after the economy recovers, the money borrowed to finance the spending. Not only is there no such commitment; at present the only realistic prospect is of staggering deficits stretching indefinitely into the future ...
I would say that the extreme unlikelihood of getting a "credible commitment to repay" explains the "malaise" that worries Shiller.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Three items on finance
How would it have worked? Regulators would be given the legal authority to dictate the terms of a recapitalisation, subject to an agreed framework. The details will vary from case to case, but for Lehman, officials could have proceeded as follows. First, the concerns over valuation could have been addressed by writing assets down by $25 billion, roughly wiping out existing shareholders. Second, to recapitalise the bank, preferred-stock and subordinated-debt investors would have converted their approximately $25 billion of existing holdings in return for 50% of the equity in the new Lehman. Holders of Lehman’s $120 billion of senior unsecured debt would have converted 15% of their positions, and received the other 50% of the new equity.
The remaining 85% of senior unsecured debt would have been unaffected, as would the bank’s secured creditors and its customers and counterparties. The bank’s previous shareholders would have received warrants that would have value only if the new company rebounded. Existing management would have been replaced after a brief transition period.
The equity of this reinforced Lehman would have been $43 billion, roughly double the size of its old capital base. To shore up liquidity and confidence further, a consortium of big banks would have been asked to provide a voluntary, multi-billion-dollar funding facility for Lehman, ranking ahead of existing senior debt. The capital and liquidity ratios of the new Lehman would have been rock-solid. A bail-in like this would have allowed Lehman to open for business on Monday.
Many investors would no doubt complain about the rough justice of a regulator-imposed reorganisation. To preserve value, officials would have to move very, very quickly, leaving little time to fine-tune various claims or observe normal procedures. The new structure would be based on bankruptcy reorganisation principles, allocating value in accordance with investors’ seniority and ensuring that each class of investors would be better off than in liquidation. The process would not be pretty but overall, investors should be relieved by the result. In this example the bail-in would have saved them over $100 billion in aggregate, and everybody—other than short-sellers in Lehman—would have been better off than today.
Where and how did investors fail? Where and how did politicians fail? Who will unscramble the eggs?
In "Why Didn't Canada's Housing Market Go Bust?" James McGee finds that "Housing markets in the U.S. and Canada are similar in many respects, but each fared quite differently since the onset of the financial crisis. A comparison of the two markets suggests that relaxed lending standards likely played a critical role in the U.S. housing bust." It seems that the Canadians never got around to creating a Fan and a Fred. What were they thinking?
In "Alt-A: The Forgotten Segment of the Mortgage Market," Rajdeep Sengupta describes "aggressive underwriting" by various banks. What were they thinking?
Thursday, January 28, 2010
No falsifiability
Today, it's high-speed rail in Florida. This project will save-or-create jobs. And it will save-or-create clean air and/or global warming relief.
But if serious people can live with the save-or-create idea, then anything goes. In fact, plausibly serious people have one more line of defense. If the save-and-create results (somehow) fall short, then the obvious response is that we just did not push hard enough. Even more stimulus (high-speed rail, "green" jobs, you name it) will surely be the remedy.
There simply is no falsifiability.
UPDATE
Here are some Florida high-speed rail project numbers from Bob Poole.

