Category Archives: Finance

Understanding the lack of free lunch in the student loans debate

I’d guess my opinion matches most Americans about the Supreme Court’s student loan decision. The online response has been rather mental though. There’s been a number of people hyping up “obvious” solutions that have very very obvious problems that they don’t want to confront. So I’d like to speak about some of those.

Student loans should be dischargable in bankruptcy. The entire reason that Joe Biden supported student loans not being dischargable was so that poor students with no assets would be able to get the loans. The only reason someone will give you a loan is because they want their money back with interest. If they don’t think you’ll pay them back, they either won’t give you the loan or will demand exorbitant interest rates. The people who will get loans are either rich enough that they can obviously afford to repay, or are using the loan to buy an asset which can be repossessed if they refuse to pay. Poor students don’t fall into those categories, so for a long time they were locked out of student loans.

If student loans become dischargable, then banks will fear that certain students will rack up student loans and then immediately declare bankruptcy upon graduation. The graduate will have no assets to repossess, and so the bank is SoL. Banks will then only give loans to individuals with enough assets to repossess, or who are already wealthy enough to pay it back easily. Making loans dischargable would reduce the number of poor people who can go to college, and thereby increase income inequality. If you think that’s a good trade-off then we can have that debate, but this isn’t a consequence-free solution.

Loans should have no interest. This is the same as saying there should not be any student loans. Again, the reason people give out loans is because they expect to make back their money with interest. Without interest, there is no reason to ever write student loans. And so again, college becomes unreachable for those not already rich.

College should be free, provided by the government. This is a defensible policy, but too many people imagine a world without trade-offs, and those must be considered. People who think college should be free often point to Europe but don’t even understand that college is in fact not always free. In Germany, where college is free, only 1/3 of adults have a post-secondary degree or certificate, compared to around 1/2 of Americans. The exact numbers vary depending on how you count, but there is a clear divide, higher education is more rationed in Germany than it is in America.

The German system means that not everyone is even allowed to try to go to University, and those that do go usually face fewer teachers per student, (meaning they have to teach themselves more) and less assistance overall. I’m sure a lot of people would immediately fire back that this is a good thing, not everyone needs to go to University. But the thing is they’re usually talking about other people. They would never be able to look themselves in the mirror and admit that they be one of the 2/3 of people who just aren’t good enough to be accepted into a German University. Because higher education is not as rationed in America, more people can go.

Then there are the universities that actually do have fees. On paper these are lower than American fees, in practice many Americans qualify for financial aid that makes college free or at least cheaper than European college. In Belgium, tuition fees are about 1000 euros a year. I paid less than that in my undergrad (around 1000 dollars a year) because I received a good scholarship. And I was not an exceptional student at an exceptional university, if I was I might have gotten a full ride.

There are many reasons to despise the ever increasing cost of American universities. Most of the money goes to administrative bloat, almost nothing is spent to improve student lives or increase professor’s pay. Even the most “socially conscious” Universities will still pay millions of dollars to water their perfect lawns rather than pay the staff or grad students a living wage. But the student loan debate comes with trade-offs, and we must confront them if we want to change the system. Cakeism will get us nowhere.

Corporate Greed is over, now comes corporate generosity

If you’ve been to the grocery store recently, you have probably seen an incredible sight. Eggs are now selling for less than they did in 2022. Walmart says they’ll sell me eggs for 1.19$ a dozen, and Target will sell them for 0.99$ with a special discount. Considering that at the beginning of 2023, eggs were selling for as much as 5$ a dozen, this comedown is remarkable.

It gets to the heart of a discussion about the origins of inflation though. The classical definition of inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. That means that when either the money supply is increased or their is a shortage of goods, we should expect to see inflation. This thesis does seem to have played out in 2021-2023. The money supply was increased enormously in 2020 and 2021, while COVID restrictions meant the supply of goods was constrained and could not rise quickly to meet it.

But that isn’t the definition that has been gaining traction. Recently folks have pointed to corporate greed as the primary driver of inflation. Under this thesis, inflation is not driven by the money supply or the goods supply, but by corporate greed in and of itself. If corporations weren’t greedy, they wouldn’t raise prices. But if prices go up because corporations are greedy, doesn’t that mean they go down because corporations are generous?

I’d like to see someone like Bernie Sanders explain the fall in egg prices. Why aren’t Walmart and Target just being greedy like all the other companies? If it’s so easy to raise egg prices by being greedy, then what mechanism could possibly make prices fall? What possible reason could their be for a fundamentally greedy company to willingly lower prices and receive less money?

For that matter, why is Exxon-Mobile being so damn generous? Over the past year, crude oil prices have gone from 100$ to just 70$. Exxon-Mobile was public enemy number 1 when gas prices were high, and was blamed for being too greedy. Have they now become generous instead? Have all the oil companies become generous? Why are the oil companies so much more generous than all the other companies?

It gets to the heart of the problem, inflation isn’t driven by corporate greed. Corporate greed is a constant, I’d go so far as to say human greed is a constant. Corporations (on average) demand the highest possible price for their goods that the market will bear. Laborers (again on average) also demand the highest possible price for their labor that the market will bear. No one ever willingly takes a pay cut without good reason, good reason usually being they have no other choice.

If corporations want to raise their prices above what the market will accept, then they’d be like me walking up to my boss and demanding a million dollar salary. They won’t get what they want no matter how hard they try. If Walmart raises the price of eggs, then Target can steal all of their business by keeping its egg prices low. People stop buying eggs at Walmart, they instead buy eggs from Target or from one of the hundreds of small and independent retailers that still dot America. Grocery stores are not a monopoly in our country, they do not have the power to set prices on their own. They are always in competition with each other and prices reflect that competition.

By the same token, if I demand a million dollar salary, my boss just won’t pay it. If I say I’ll quit if I don’t get it, he’ll show me the door. I am competing with hundreds of other workers in my field and so I cannot raise the price of my labor over and above what others are charging or else I’ll get replaced. It is a fact that many people ignore, but there is a market for labor just as their is a market for any other good. And the labor market has sellers (workers) and buyers (employers) just like any other. So when trying to answer questions about (say) the egg market, it’s useful to first think about how it works in the labor market. We are probably all more familiar the labor market with since if you’re reading this blog you’ve likely worked in your life.

So, in the labor market, can the sellers of labor (the workers) raise their prices just by being greedy? No, of course not. Without some decrease in supply or increase in demand, the price (salary) of laborers doesn’t go up, and workers who refuse to work for the market raise simply won’t receive job offers. It’s the same with corporations and it’s the same with goods inflation. Prices of goods aren’t driven by greed. They’re driven by supply shortages and a glut of money, both of which are in part exacerbated by government policies.

The current administration has continued Trump’s protectionist trade policies, which prevent American companies from being forced to compete with overseas companies. And both congressional spending and the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet have expanded considerably, bringing more and more money into the money supply. Too much money chasing too few goods, that is what causes inflation.

It’s official, we’re now being taxed to pay back Peter Thiel

I posted a while ago about how the Biden administration was bailing out SVB without calling it a bailout. Basically Silicon Valley billionaire and hedge fund managers (like Peter Thiel) put all their money in a bank well in excess of the 250,000$ FDIC insurance limit. That limit is a known risk. If the bank you use goes bankrupt, and if you exceed that limit, the FDIC is only obligated to give you back 250,000$. Doesn’t matter if you had 250,001$ or 999,999,999,999$, FDIC is only obligated to give you 250,000$.

But that would be unfair to the billionaires. After all, why should they ever suffer the consequences of their actions? So instead the administration promised that every single depositor would be made fully whole. This was spun as them protecting the little guy, but the little guy was already covered by the 250,000$ insurance. I don’t have more than that in the bank, neither does anyone else I know. If my bank goes bankrupt, I will be fully paid back because my deposit is far less than 250,000$. If you have more than that amount, then you are solidly rich and do not need a government bailout.

But the bailout came anyway. The FDIC handed out money to cover the billionaires and hedge funds. Now that money has to come from somewhere. Biden promised it wouldn’t come from the taxpayers of course, but it still is coming from the little guy. It’s coming from our bank accounts.

Every person who owns a bank account is paying a small amount of tax into the FDIC insurance program. It won’t show up as a line item in your bank statement, but it’s there all the same. But for every bank account held by a bank, they have to pay a little bit into the FDIC. That cost naturally gets passed on to the holder of the bank account, just like every other tax. When the tax on cigarettes rises, the price of cigarettes rises. So too is it with bank accounts. You won’t see the tax as money rushing out of your account, but you will see it as less money going in. The bank will pay you less interest on your deposits because they have to take some off the top to pay for the FDIC insurance. And if there was no FDIC insurance, you’d get more interest.

You can see this exact same scenario if you look at big bank accounts. There are some banks with accounts which hold millions, even billions of dollars. The FDIC is only obligated to pay back 250,000$ in the case of bankruptcy, but a responsible billionaire who does not need a government bailout will pay for deposit insurance which covers more than the 250,000$ FDIC limit. That deposit insurance will decrease the amount of interest paid on the deposit, or even remove the interest entirely to pay the insurance. If you have to pay for insurance, you get less interest.

Everyone with a bank account has to pay for FDIC insurance, we don’t even get a choice. And now we need to pay for even more insurance to refill the FDIC’s account since they emptied it to bail out Peter Thiel

The FDIC plans to hit big banks with a tax to refill its account. This is being spun as a progressive redistribution from the rich to the poor. It’s the opposite. If a tax is levied on Walmart, Walmart just raises its prices, and the Walmart customers pay that tax themselves. The vast majority of Americans have their money in a big bank like Bank of America. So the big banks are going to pass this new tax onto their depositors, just as they pass the FDIC insurance tax onto us. You and I will be receiving less interest on our deposits now, because the FDIC spent all their money on Peter Thiel and co. Take from the poor to give to the rich, socialize loses and privatize profits. It’s 2008 all over again.

I know the amount is small. It’s probably going to be no more than a few dollars in lost interest in my account. But a few dollars times the 100 million or so Americans who bank with big banks makes the few billion dollars needed to bail out Peter Thiel and co. And it shouldn’t be this way, we should not be paying for their mistake.

And I know I keep harping on Peter Thiel, but it’s because a bunch of so-called “progressives” are refusing to even contemplate that this is a bailout taking money from the poor. By ignoring the context you can see SVB and its depositors as “the little guys” and Bank of America as “the rich” so taking money from Bank of America to give to SVB depositors is re-distributive. But it isn’t so. SVB was the bank of billionaires and hedge funds, Bank of America is the overwhelming bank of America’s poor and middle class. Taking from Bank of America to pay back SVB’s depositors is taking from the poor and middle class to pay back the billionaires. And reminding those “progressives” of exactly who is being paid back is just something I feel I should do.

Socialism Betrayed: Racist Great Man theory of history strikes again

There was some mid historian who once said: “The history of modern Europe can be defined by 3 men: Napoleon, Lenin, and Hitler.” This plithy remark sums up much about the “great man” theory of history.

For those who don’t know, the great man theory believes that history is moved not by economic or societal or any large scale forces, but by the actions of individuals, the “great men” (almost never women). This theory opines that it was Napoleon, whose conquests spread republicanism throughout Europe and whose terrorizing of European monarchs lead to the Concert of Europe, it was this Napoleon who defined the course of the 19th century. And in just the same way, Lenin and Hitler in their own ways defined the course of the 20th century, pulling Europe in their directions of communism or fascism, remaking the modern world through their life and death. NATO and the Warsaw pact, whose presence defined Europe for half a century, came about because of Hitler. And Leninist communism, which defined the ideological struggle between East and West, came about obviously due to Lenin.

This great man theory has been attacked by much better historians than I, but I want to focus right now on how it completely invalidates the role of any individual in society except the Great Man himself. Napoleon without an army to command and a state to lead is nothing, and yet his soldiers, his bureaucrats, and the entire nation he inherited are meaningless in the great man theory of history. And the revolutions which toppled the monarchy and allowed Napoleon to begin his rise were not the actions of solitary great men, but a great mass movement of the French people as a whole. It is likely that even if Napoleon had never existed, the conflict between revolutionary republicanism and monarchism which defined much of his legacy would still have happened. And if Lenin had not existed, the conflict between capitalism and communism would likely still have been present.

I’m reading “Socialism Betrayed” by Roger Keeran and Thomas Kenny and it’s startling how in the very first pages of the book, they define their thesis that the great man theory is true and the people of society do not matter.

The collapse of the Soviet Union did not occur because of an internal economic crisis or popular uprising. It occurred because of the reforms initiated at the top by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and its General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev

Socialism Betrayed

Really?! It didn’t happen because of nationalist movements among the subjugated peoples of the USSR, like the Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians? It didn’t happen because of mass movements which defined the collapse of every other Warsaw Pact nation in Europe? It didn’t happen because of the well-documented shortages and flailing USSR economy propped up almost entirely by oil and gas money? How easy it is to do history when you can define your villain and ignore all context!

I can already tell that this book will be dumb. Real dumb. Probably as bad as “The End of Growth” for how much it will ignore the facts to suit and opinion. Why are all the dumbest books I read the anti-capitalist ones?

Don’t put all your money into bonds, a message for SVB

So remember a while ago I wrote a post about how you should diversify your investing, not just put all your money into bonds? I just realized that if SVB had listened to me they wouldn’t have been in this mess. I talked about how rising interest rates make old bonds worth less than you payed for them, and how you’d take a loss if you needed to sell them in a hurry. That’s exactly what caused SVB’s collapse, they were sitting on assets (bonds) that had lost tons of value due to rising interest rates. That triggered fears of insolvency which triggered a bank run.

If anyone knows a dumb bank that needs to hire a smart guy like me to do risk assessment, I’m always looking for a new job. Just email theusernamewhichismine@gmail.com.

It’s not a bailout unless it comes from the bailout region of DC

America is bailing out the banks again, but like Josh Barro writes, we don’t want to say we are. When the government hands billions of dollars to Silicon Valley hedge funds by guaranteeing their deposits, it makes us wonder why they can’t hand billions of dollars to those of us struggling with inflation. Maybe they can guarantee our rents? But this totally isn’t a bailout, just ask Biden.

For those who don’t know what I’m talking about, Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) was a bank holding deposits from hedge-fund backed startups and using them to make very risky plays. Those risks cased them to crash and burned due to rising interest rates. So the government had to bail them out, but it doesn’t want to call it a bailout.

So why isn’t this bailout really a bailout? Well, only the depositors will be getting all their money back, the bond and equity holders of SVB will be getting little to nothing. This has led some to even applaud this bailout as being re-distributive: money is going from the wealthy to the poor.

Let’s get one thing straight, this is a bailout of the rich. Depositors are ALREADY guaranteed to get their money back p to $250,000. The FDIC already made sure anyone with less than $250,000 in the bank got their money back. But what about the poor hedge funds and VCs with millions, even billions of dollars locked in the bank? Well normally they would get back $250,000, but it’s not fair that rich people lose money so that’s what this bailout is supposed to cover.

The wealthy depositors will be made whole at the expense of bond and equity holders of course. But that’s just moving money from the rich, politically connected people to the rich, not-so-connected, it’s classic graft of making sure your boys get the best from the government.

More to the point, the money may not come from the government per se but it is coming from the people, or at least the people with bank accounts. FDIC is the insurance that is paid by every bank account, and it in turn pays to cover all bank accounts up to 250,000 dollars should their be a bank run. The fact that the FDIC will now be covering more, potentially up to billions in dollars, means that money has to come from somewhere. It will come from all the other people with FDIC ensured bank accounts, all the people with a few hundred or thousand dollars in the bank.

The FDIC isn’t a line item you’ll see in your bank statement, it’s an invisible insurance policy to most people. But make no mistake it is paid by the account holders. If FDIC insurance did not exist, the bank would give you a higher interest rate on your savings account because they wouldn’t need to pay insurance on your bank account. Instead, interest on deposits is likely to be lower than expected as the FDIC will have to drawn on the insurance premiums from every small account in order to cover the billions of dollars they’ve pledged to rich hedge fund managers. Poor people with small bank accounts will be made tangibly more poor in order to ensure hedge funds get all their money back.

Not only that, there is a definite moral hazard with bailout out the rich in this manner. When a bank goes under, there is supposed to be a protocol of who gets what. Depositors up to 250,000 dollars will be covered by FDIC no matter what, everything else including bond holders, equity holders, and large depositors is fair game depending on the results of the bankruptcy.

Instead, it is know going to be assumed that depositors will always be bailed out at the expense of bond holders. People who want to make low interest money have a few options: they can give it to the bank and get interest, or they can buy a bond and get the coupon. They know that if their money is large, both of these carry risks. The deposit and interest are only covered up the 250,000 while bonds can be defaulted on or banks can go bankrupt. However now, the calculus changes. Deposits will always be bailed out by the FDIC at the expense of bonds, meaning that they are now much safer and bonds are much riskier. This could even make it worse for some banks as they will find they cannot raise money through bonds as easy as they used to. Who will buy your bond if a high-yield savings account gives roughly the same interest rate and is guaranteed zero risk by the FDIC no matter how much money you put in?

So this is a bailout that isn’t a bailout, it gives money to the rich at the expense of the poor.

Quick Post: WTF happened with Silicon Valley Bank

So I’m really only making this post so I can link to it in another post, but while there have been plenty of explainers going around about what happened with Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) I wanted to get all the facts as I know them in one place.

Basically, Silicon Valley Bank had a bank run and needed a bailout. Why?

When you deposit your money into a bank, the bank pays you interest on the money. You are giving what is essentially a loan to the bank, and they in turn use that money to give loans to other people. The assumption is that the interest they get on their loans is more than the interest they pay you for your money, so the bank can always stay profitable.

Banks have their best relationships with the people who deposit money into them, so those tend to be the ones they reach out to and offer loans. Whatever bank you deposit your paycheck into is likely going to be the one that offers you a car or a house loan. But SVB was taking deposits from Tech startups and Silicon Valley hedge funds. Those guys don’t need or want loans. They raise money through equity, not loans. So while lots of deposits flowed into SVB, far fewer loans flowed out.

So how could SVB make money without loans? They bought bonds instead. Government bonds are just a loan you give to the government after all, and SVB thought that using their deposits to buy bonds was a surefire strategy because the government will never default. Remember that banks don’t ever just sit on loads of cash, they have to sell assets if they want “liquidity” (finance speak for cash). But if depositors want their money back, SVB can just sell bonds and give them cash, while if depositors hand them more money, SVB will use that money to buy government bonds.

But then inflation came, and brought with it interest rates. We’ve discussed before about how when interest rates rise, the price of an old bond falls. If you bought a bond paying 0.25% and interest rates have gone up to 5%, no one will buy your bond without a heavy discount. So 3 years ago a tech startup deposited $100 dollars into SVB, and SVB bought 100$ worth of bonds. Now the startup wants its money back but the 100$ bond SVB has bought has given them almost no interest (0.25%!) and has collapsed in price. When SVB sells its bond, it gets back WAY less than 100$.

So when interest rates rose, SVB’s bonds were all worth a lot less, but they were obligated to sell them to pay back their depositors. That would be fine if only a few depositors wanted their money, SVB can take a loss and make back the difference with profit elsewhere. But if ALL their depositors want their money back, SVB cannot cover.

And the depositors did want their money back. Startups backed by hedge funds get piles of money by selling stock, IPO’ing, and selling equity. Then they handed that money to SVB. Stock prices collapsed in part due to rising interest rates, the flow of cheap money stopped. Because of that, startups needed to take their money back out of SVB to keep the lights on. Money was flowing out but nothing was flowing in.

So SVB had a massive interest rates risk on both sides of its balance sheet. Interest rates decreased the amount of money going in (by tanking the stock market and making IPOs and share selling less common) while also decreasing the value of the assets SVB held (by making their government bonds worth less). Add onto that that inflation increased the amount of money flowing out (since startups needed to pay more for everything) and SVB was primed for a bank run. Depositors realized SVB didn’t have enough cash to cover everyone’s deposits, and so they all rushed to take all their money out before it collapsed.

And so collapse it did, and the government handed it a bailout. I’ll write more about that tomorrow.

Joel Kurtzman is the opposite of Richard Heinberg

I just wanted to start by saying I’ve become much more lackadaisical about these posts recently. My work is getting interesting, so I’m not putting as much time and effort into my research prior to posting. I’m mostly shooting from the hip based on whatever comes to mind. I still enjoy this though so I’ll keep doing it, and I hope my couple of readers don’t mind the decline in quality.

With that said, it’s so interesting that Joel Kurtzman detects the exact opposite problem as Richard Heinberg. For those who remember, Richard Heinberg wrote “The End of Growth” in which he posited that there would be no more economic growth after 2010 (lol, lmao even). He claimed that this was because the world had entered an inextricable supply crunch, there just wasn’t enough stuff to go around (especially oil!) and our economy was already well past the carrying capacity of the planet. This meant that we couldn’t keep growing, because without more stuff to put in our factories we couldn’t make products to sell to people. We would all have to get by with less.

Hilariously, Joel Kurtzman detects the opposite problem from his vantage point in 1987. He detects a severe overproduction of commodities and finished goods caused by the industrialization of the global south and its competition with America, Europe and Japan. In Kurtzman’s thesis, we are entering an inescapable race to the bottom where wages will continue to fall further and further as companies try to make money while the prices of goods fall. Not only that but the nations of the world have financed their overproduction through the accumulation of debt, which they won’t be able to pay off as prices fall meaning there will be a debt collapse and further unemployment.

I’m sure both authors would think me uncharitable towards their theses, but that was my reading from their books.

The point is, I think both of them are suffering from extreme recency bias. Heinberg was writing after a decade of constricted oil supply had caused a rise in prices and had been followed by an economy crash. He thought the constricted supply would continue forever and the low-growth era following the crash was permanent.

Kurtzman was writing after a supply crunch had turned into a supply glut. OPEC’s oil embargo of the 70s had forced the world’s economies to become more efficient and induced many companies to step up their own oil production. In the late 80s, rising oil investment turned into an oil boom, and to maintain market share OPEC countries increased production without the consent of the entire group. This, alongside new technologies to make oil use more efficient, led to an oil glut and depressed prices. Add to this that prices were falling in other sectors, and Kurtzman thought this trend would continue forever.

Both Kurtzman and Heinberg astutely identified trends in their immediate present, and then extrapolated those trends infinitely into the future to arrive at their desired policy goals. For Heinberg: it was degrowth. For Kurtzman: it was protectionism. Both of them failed to understand that actions change with changing conditions. Heinberg didn’t realize that a rise in oil prices would spur investment into new extraction methods (fracking) and more efficient usage of oil (hybrid/electric cars). Kurtzman didn’t understand that falling commodity prices allows companies to produce more for less, nor did he understand that the American economy didn’t need manufacturing jobs to stay highly paid. If more stuff is being produced while still profitable, then consumers win because prices go down. And American consumers won most of all because tech jobs were replacing laborious manufacturing jobs.

I know pontificating is a hard job, I think all the pontifications I’ve made on this blog have been off the mark (though I don’t ask for money). But I find it fascinating that these two authors erred in exactly the same way to arrive at completely divergent answers. I’d love to have Kurtzman from 1987 debate Heinberg from 2010. Don’t let them use historical data, just explain to each other why will commodity prices have to remain high/low for the foreseeable future? I wonder whose head would explode first.

Follow up: what did Joel Kurtzman think of the 90s and 2000s?

I wrote a post last week about Joel Kurtzman’s “The Decline and Crash of the American Economy,” a book from the 80s that posited that America’s best days were behind it. Kurtzman’s central thesis appears to be:

  • Manufacturing is moving overseas, causing America to run a trade deficit
  • To buy foreign goods, America and Americans are becoming indebted to the rest of the world
  • Foreign investment is flooding into American stocks and American debt, causing us to lose control of our own economy
  • The much touted “service jobs” and “information age economy” are a mirage
  • As a result of the above four facts, the American economy is entering a period of decline and crash which can only be solved by strong protectionism and government control of the economy

This was all written in the 80s, and to an old-school leftists I guess it all seemed very sensible. I could imagine Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders making these exact arguments in 1980, while adding a few more worker-centric chapters of their own. The problem is that this thinking has largely been supplanted by modern economics.

Manufacturing is not the only thing an economy does. The knowledge economy, which Kurtzman scoffed at as the “information age economy,” has rapidly eclipsed all the manufacturing that came before it and continues to propel American forward. Likewise foreign investment flooding into America is by no means bad, as it allowed American companies and the Government to finance themselves with debt or equity. If foreign investment was fleeing America, that would be cause for concern. Being in debt is not a biblical sin for an economy. We all take on debt all the time because the value of having a car or a house now is greater than the value of the money we will use to pay off that debt over 5 to 20 years. The same is true for companies expanding, and foreign investment flooding into America means companies can issue debt much more cheaply than they could otherwise.

Furthermore Kurtzman’s prescription was largely abandoned in the 90s. Both Republicans and Democrats largely made peace with free trade (although the 2 most recent presidents have bucked this trend). There is a strong argument to be made that tariffs on foreign goods hurt the American economy as much as they do the foreign economy for a number of reasons. Tariffs create a walled garden for certain goods, allowing noncompetitive industries to remain in business for longer than they should. In turn these noncompetitive industries suck up investment and compete for resources, making it harder for actually competitive companies to expand as they should be able to. There is only so much supply of money, parts, and workers, if Ford was heavily subsidized by tariffs, would Tesla have been able to take off? Finally tariffs alter the incentive calculus for a company because once tariffs are part of the political equation, companies can increase their profits more by demanding higher and higher tariffs from the government than they can by actually improving production. This caused some Latin American countries to enter a tariff spiral where goods became more and more expensive because rather than compete with the rest of the world, companies put their effort into demanding higher and higher tariffs.

In the 90s and the 2000s America largely abandoned Kurtzman’s thesis and his prescriptions. Angst and newsrooms aside, the trade deficit kept expanding, NAFTA remained in place, the service and information sector were seen as avenues of growth, and debt kept piling up. If Kurtzman then thought the Financial Crisis was proof of his theory, he would have been rather sad that America came out of the crisis much better than most of the nations he said it was indebted to, such as Japan, Latin America, and Europe.

Reading Kurtzman’s book is like reading politics from a bygone age. I once read a book about “the Crime of ’73,” a much maligned bill which removed the right of silver-bullion-holders to have their silver minted into dollars. Pro-silver advocates despised this bill so utterly that it eventually launched William Jennings Bryan as a presidential candidate, a candidacy he might not have gained had the silver movement not been so motivated and powerful. Yet reading it today, it’s hard to understand why this economic debate was filled with such hatred and vitriol. It’s hard to understand the motivations behind the players, and how for them this was the defining issue of their age. Because honestly, America has moved past that debate long ago: silver isn’t money and neither is gold, dollars are. I almost feel the same way with Kurtzman’s book. The last 2 presidents notwithstanding, most of my adult life has been shaped by a bipartisan agreement on free trade and the importance of the information economy over traditional manufacturing. I just wonder what Kurtzman would think now.

Was the Crash of 1987 all that important?

America has had a lot of recessions, depressions, and financial crises. Every country has of course, but since America has been the world’s largest economy for well over 100 years, ours get more press and reverberate more strongly throughout the world. But the crash of 1987 is one that I rarely see talked about, and I thought that was with good reason. On October 19th 1987, stock prices worldwide crashed by double digits in a single day. But the effects on the wider economy were not so severe, and the US economy still grew by 3.5% that year.

The Crash of 1987 is a good reminder that the stock market is not identical to the “real” economy. Now, they are not wholly diverged either, and if stock prices crash companies will find it harder to use their stock to finance expansion. But they aren’t tightly coupled and the Crash of 1987 is one of the many events that proves it. However I’m reading a book now called “The Decline and Crash of the American Economy” that appears to posit more from 1987 than was warranted.

The author, Joel Kurtzman, tells you his thesis on the cover of the book, and the inside jacket makes special note of how 1987 heralded deep problems that would not be fixed without his preferred policies being implemented. But Kurtzman is basically a left-protectionist who blames Nixon and Reagan for ending the gold standard/Bretton Woods and liberalizing American trade. Kurtzman’s policies were by no means implemented, but the 90s were hardly a decline and crash by anyone’s definition. It feels to me like Kurtzman had a thesis already in place, and simply used the crash of 1987 as ex post facto proof of what he already believed.

I’ll try to write more about this book in the coming days, but I don’t think 1987 was an important as Kurtzman thinks.