Skeptonomics

While attention was elsewhere, congress voted to give lend GM, Ford and Chrysler a $25B bailout all their own. I can remember a time not so long ago when that would have been considered real money. Critics protest: why should we prop up Detroit? What about Toyota and Honda, for instance: they produce in this country too, no?

But this misses the point. Toyota and Honda don’t need the money; they’ve been designing and building fuel-efficient vehicles for years. We should reward the Big 3 for binging on SUV’s and starving their research engineers.

It’s official: Henry Paulson is now authorized to begin shelling out the first tranche in his $700B plan to refloat financial markets. Don’t pull your money out from under your mattress just yet, however.

1. This is just a beginning. The writedowns in the mortgage market are estimated at $2 trillion and the bubble is still unwinding. The losses in derivative assets will be greater still. The bailout buys time but it does not constitute a solution.

2. The problem of pricing assets will be enormous. There is a technical problem, of course, in determining the price of something that no one currently bids for, but a deeper issue lurks. The plan was sold on the basis of highly ambiguous wording. It was stated for public consumption that the only problem is liquidity, and that the Fed/Treasury can solve it by offering to buy assets at their hold-to-maturity value. Everyone knows, however, that the real problem is solvency, and that the unspoken intention is to overpay in order to slip cash to players who might otherwise go under. No doubt it is possible to do this quietly, a few billion at a time, like the US military does in Iraq, but this is not big enough or fast enough to rescue the markets. There will need to be big, big overpayments, and in their search for congressional votes the plan’s backers couldn’t hope to ask for such a mandate. This means that everyone connected with the operation will be looking over their shoulders, worrying that, if they follow the unstated intent of the law, they will be held personally accountable.

But look on the bright side: mental illness will now be covered under more private health insurance plans (for those dwindling few that have them), and small timber-dependent communities out here in the Pacific northwest will be able to keep their schools open. So the bill will have some successes to crow about.

This is the title of piece of mine just published in the Post-Autistic Economics Review. I happen to be a fan of science (I’m so pre-postmodern) and would like economics to move in that direction. Let me know what you think.

As loyal readers of EconoSpeak know, on Sept. 24 I posted a relatively substantial proposal that I headlined “Plan B: How to Restore Financial Markets Without a Bailout”. Three days later, I was surprised to see almost the same plan referred to in a New York Times column, but attached to the name of Andrew Feldstein, the director of a hedge fund. What struck me is that, not only were the two key general ideas—the public financial intermediary, the window to acquire distressed assets at market prices—the same, even the initial capitalization was pegged at an identical $300B. (Some of the details revealed in a followup Times blog were different and, honestly, not as good.) In my line of work, this is a prima facie case of plagiarism.

What this probably represents, however, is a difference in culture. In the academic world that I inhabit, there is a strong expectation that all borrowed words or ideas will be attributed to their source. Failure to do this constitutes an intellectual scandal; on the positive side, we try to impress our peers with a bottomless pile of citations. (This is called “scholarship”.)

The business world is different. There the rule is, if it ain’t nailed down you can take it. Having a bright idea and getting mentioned in the Times is worth real money. I can imagine that Feldstein’s fund may get an extra investor or two (or dissuade an existing investor from fleeing) by the halo effect of this publicity. I was dumb enough not to copyright my idea, so what do I expect?

Actually, while I like to have my ego stroked every now and then, and while I would come down hard on any student who submitted a paper that plagiarized, I don’t really care about attribution in this case. I would like this idea to be given a fair hearing, and someone with a hedge fund is likely to have a wider audience than me. In fact, I rather like the notion that an obscure economist can release an idea on some little corner of the web, it can bounce around for a while, and then reappear dressed up in real money.