Economic Predictions in News Media

Have you noticed the headlines and articles about economic data, things like the unemployment figures and growth rates, that often include references to predictions by a group of economists? The headline will say, “New jobs exceed expectations!” “Growth rate falls below predictions.” What predictions? So what?

I have seen no complete explanation of where these predictions come from. In a couple articles I have read, the author has offered a one or two sentence note to give some credence to the prediction, but nowhere I have I seen any statement about why the expectation has any meaning or what that meaning could be.

From what I can tell, the set up is something like this: A news company has contracted or at least asked several economists, presumably people with the appropriate background, who will periodically provide their expectation as to what the figures in soon to be published reports will be. This practice is used in at least a few different countries.

Which economists are used isn’t mentioned or if they are academic, government, or private economists. Nor has any mention been made about what methods of prediction are being used by any individual predictors.

One reporter mentioned that the news company did drop extreme predictions, i.e., ones that were considerable different from the majority of responses from the predictors. Otherwise, the process seems to be that when the responses are in, the news company averages the numbers, and that becomes the standard for evaluating the real number when it is announced.

One wonders if the predictors are evaluated in any way. For example, if one economists consistently offers numbers that are way off or always in the wrong direction, would he be stricken from the list? Should there be any weight given to the predictor is usually closest to the real number? One wonders if there is any consistency between the methods used by the various economists offering predictions. If one, for example, uses the Mystery 8 Ball, another uses a computer model based upon the proportional orbits of the planets, and a third uses a model based upon Keynesian precepts, what could it mean to average the predictions? That is an extreme example (who in their right mind would use Keynes?), but if everyone’s methods were inconsistent, what would an average mean? What would any comparison of answers mean?

But the real thing is that the meaning of the prediction is the opposite from what the news organization suggests. What should be happening is an evaluation of the method and underlying reasoning for the prediction in comparison to the real numbers, i.e., reality (assuming that the “real numbers” are themselves generated by a rational method). If the predictions by a particular method and theoretical framework consistently provide a figure reasonably close to the reality then the validity and truthfulness of the theory is supported. Possibly, if the theory is consistently correct in its predictions, then that particular approach could be used in the future for predictions for some reason. But that still wouldn’t support the present news organization approach. You certainly wouldn’t take a poll.

But the relation of the real number to the prediction means nothing. The relation of the two provides no knowledge about the consequences or importance of the real number.

No one should care. (Well, except the economist who truly wants to understand the economy.)

Basic Economics: Savings Accounts

Looking at the modern relationships between interest rates, taxes, and price inflation, I have wondered why anyone would put money into savings accounts or buy bonds, especially U.S. government bonds. A savings account, earning 1.6% (The top rate offered by my credit union recently.), after taxes of say 20% and price inflation of 2% gives you a guaranteed annual loss of 0.72%! The situation for bonds isn’t that much better, if at all. For someone with a higher income, with higher tax rates, the loss is substantially greater .

On the other hand, I know that savings accounts have historically been the primary savings vehicle in the U.S. I know from 100 Voices that Ayn Rand held her money from the sales of her novels in savings accounts. What is the difference between then, even as late as the 1970s and the 1990s, which is when I first realized the problem.

In thinking about this issue, one of the first things I saw is that interest rates have been declining as a trend since the spike in 1990. At that time I had a mortgage at 10.75%. The decline in interest rates since then has been the consequence of the Fed’s view that below market interest rates on loans encourages consumption and business activity and that if they don’t have the economic activity that they want, they decide they should lower rates more. Each round of recession and boom and financial crisis over the last twenty plus years has seen the Fed pushing short-term interest rates lower and lower. Today, the short-term rates are about as low as then can go. The rate the Fed controls directly, the rate it charges banks to borrow overnight funds for their Fed “reserves” (deposits) is zero to 0.25%. (Some recent auctions of German government short-term bonds have seen negative interest rates.) And, for the third time since 2009, they are trying to lower medium and long-term rates with “quantitative easing.”

So, first, the problem I am seeing is a very recent event. What are some of the consequences?

First there is the complete disassociation of savings and capital. The creation and use of capital is a vitally important activity in an economy. The creation and use of capital causes prosperity, not to mention the survival of our population. A population as large as ours cannot survive (or occur) without industrialization. Just to maintain industrialization requires capital. Economies either grow or contract. There is no equilibrium.

Over the last twenty years the number of households that have ownership in corporations, i.e., own stocks, has gone up significantly. One major reason is that people recognize that they have to have a more rapid growth in their retirement savings than can be provided by bank savings accounts. The need is two fold. With taxes and other restraints on creating wealth, they are not able to save enough. And then, price inflation has a double impact in that not only will it make the process of saving enough difficult, but it will also make the amount the retiree needs to live increase significantly and unpredictably. Even a 2% price inflation rate is a danger. That means that in just twenty years, a retiree would need 25% more cash for the same standard of living. Since many retirees live longer than that in retirement, and the percentage of people with such long lives is growing, the impact of even small amounts of price inflation is significant and ignored by the government planners. Bernanke has recently remarked that the effect of the Fed’s goal of 2% price inflation on retirees is unimportant in policy decisions.

You might think that a higher percentage of stockownerships is good for the economy. I’m not so sure. I was, but my view is changing. There is a difference between creating capital and owning existing capital. Saving and putting your money directly into a new or growing business is creating capital. Buying a stock from another owner is not.

Consider what should happen when you put your money into a bank savings account. (I am going to ignore the consumer loans and the loans to business for normal business activities.) Businesses come to banks for the purpose of borrowing money to start a new business or grow their existing company. This is the direct application of capital, i.e., new productive activity. Here we also see the division of labor at work. The person who saved the capital is engaged in his own profession or job and by saving, he is putting money into the hands of the banker whose profession is apprising risk and opportunity in expanding production. Then there are the businessmen who compete for funds by presenting their plans and expectations of profit.

The normal person does not have the expertise to appraise business opportunities. (Although in a rational culture he would have a better understand of the reality of business activity than people do today.) This is true in the case where people already know something about the industry. Some financial writers have advised investors to place their money in industries in which they are familiar. It isn’t a bad idea, but it does not address the additional need to be able to appraise the financial, managerial, and competitive strength of a company. Correctly understanding the context for investing is difficult enough for the professional, especially in today’s complex economy. For those who do not have the relevant education, experience or time, the prospects are very poor. No wonder everyone is so hopped up on the gambling metaphor for investing.

The need for non-professional investors to put their savings into asset markets is part of the make-up of the two recent booms: tech stocks and residential real estate. Without the amateur investor, both booms would have been less dramatic. Note that many of these investors lost lots of money, right along side the so-called professionals. This is over and above the normal losses that the non-professional investor tends to lose in the normal course of events. Some professionals use the activity of the individual investor as a contra indicator. If individual investors are buying, the reasoning goes, it is time to sell. Every study that I have seen clearly concludes that the non-professional consistently looses money investing in asset markets.

Then, over the last twelve years, as I have indicated in a previous post, the equity markets have failed to bring positive returns. Comparing equal dollars of purchasing power, today’s Dow (without including dividends or taxes) is 20% to 25% below the level at the end of the tech stock boom.

In fact, the only asset class that has shown consistent positive returns in the last decade is long-term bonds. But that brings us back to the beginning point, the Fed’s push to lower interest rates, because the reason long-term bonds have shown a gain is that interest rates keep falling. When interest rates begin to go up, watch out. Look at the returns of the bondholders of Greece, Spain, and Italy. When the interest rates on these dead bonds moved from less than 3% to near 6% or more, bond holders lost about 50% of their capital on the secondary market. To me, even 6% or 7% doesn’t seem very high when I wonder if the bonds will be repaid, or repaid with money worth anything.

There are surely lots of other consequences of the Fed’s disastrous decisions. Many are clearly visible, including the continued recession we are suffering through. (Officially the recession ended, but the psychology is still that of a recession, the unemployment level is that of a recession, and the government is doing all it can to keep us there, just like it did in the 1930s.) But the consequences that I have discussed are the ones I have recently added to my list.

But then there is the important question: Is the use of savings accounts by people who aren’t financial professionals a good thing in a laissez-faire economy and how?

The first thing to realize is that in a laissez-faire economy prices and wages tend to fall over time, which is the consequence of having a money immune from government manipulation. Prices fall faster than wages so that there is a continuous raise in the standard of living. That means that the dollar you place in a savings account will have a greater purchasing power over time even without consideration of interest paid.

The second important issue is the level of what is called the ordinary interest rate. That is the amount of return required for a person to delay consumption. This interest rate does not include consideration of risk, etc. I have seen suggestions that the rate of ordinary interest tends to be around 1%. That is, the normal person would be willing to put off spending $100 if in one year they had $101, assuming a laissez-faire economy. Other issues, such as the supply of physical capital (one market where supply does play a role in price) and risk factors, increase the interest rate within different market contexts.

So, if a savings account offered 2% interest, it was a great deal. The same is true for bonds issued by businesses. Saving for retirement would require much less of a struggle, later medical bills would be less of a problem, and our standard of living would continue to raise and we could have the flying car (see, my avatar means something – what we have lost due to government interference!).

Then, money placed into savings accounts was then loaned by banks to businesses who were credit worthy and had the best available plans for additional profits. Savings, that is capital, was accumulated and placed in the service of wealth creation, capitalism. That is basic banking.

I think much of the concern and fuss over fractional banking is based upon the view that banks are warehouses rather than institutions involved in the accumulation of capital. In the modern world, even ignoring the stupid, forced level of interest rates required by welfare state banking theory, savings have been diverted from banks and their major source of funds are demand deposits.

While unused demand deposits, and the goods represented by that money, are a kind of unintentional savings, real savings involves conscious decision and results in the funds being placed accordingly. When real savings is placed into profitable enterprise, and market rates of interest paid, investing and profit making activity would actually be a less risky activity.

With the manipulation of the money supply, the extensive regulation of the financial community, and the control of interest rates, none of the prices for savings or the factors of production reflect any part of the reality of business activity, market opportunities, or costs (not to mention political pull). Who knows what can or will happen when no facts are available for reason to evaluate.

So my conclusion is that in a laissez-faire economy, placing your money in savings accounts and buying bonds (of businesses) is a sane and personally beneficial decision.

In our economy, the government has pretty much taken way sane and beneficial opportunities. If you accept the idea that one should know what one is doing, then probably 90% of the investing public is acting irrationally. They do not understand the world as it currently functions, including the existing markets and the impact of government regulations and manipulations. Yes, I think that is true of many of my readers. Sorry.

Uncle Ben Spoke, and a couple Economics Lessons

Uncle Ben had a press conference a couple weeks ago – a first for a Fed Chairman.  (Uncle Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.)

And didn’t really say anything. Transparent! Transparent = Nothing! Fits.

So, Ben said that inflation expectations are low and that core inflation is low and the Fed isn’t responsible for anything that might be bad and everything that the Fed is responsible for is good and coming along, perhaps slowly, but coming along. Notice that when he discusses his policies he refers to the models and intellectual justifications, not to the results and consequences, not to the facts of reality.

Bernanke’s history at the Fed has shown that he does not believe that any of the problems that the economy has experienced are the result of the Fed’s policies. The Fed does the right thing and somehow, some other source of economic action causes things to go wrong. The Fed, Bernanke, is always right. He knows that he is right. He doesn’t know why things go bad.

More fundamentally, no result could cause Bernanke to question his beliefs. He is not reality oriented. He also hasn’t seen anything bad that was coming. In 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 he kept saying that everything was just fine. Then, in 2008, he said things weren’t doing so badly. Then, in 2009, he said that his actions had saved us all.

He does have the power, by being the Federal Reserve Board Chairman, to manipulate the economy. And he is intent on doing so. We are at his mercy, at the mercy of his mistaken views, at the mercy of his lack of contact with reality. We, the American people and the world, will continue to suffer.

But here is where I get very upset with the people who are criticizing him, those who post blogs and comments, etc. I include many Objectivists. The only thing they apparently see is inflation. Apparently, if commodity, food, and oil prices weren’t rising, they would have no problem with Bernanke. Well, they would probably howl that Bernanke’s policies would lead to inflation, but it would always be inflation, inflation, inflation. One note Johnnys.

It is certainly the case that the Fed’s only purview is monetary policy, i.e., pumping money. But controlling the money supply has other consequences, and to ignore those consequences is to leave Bernanke and his fellow government manipulators a free area of activity, damaging activity, deadly activity, immoral activity.

For example, one of the actions of the Fed is aimed at keeping interest rates low (the activity they have some direct control over, as opposed to the money supply, which is controlled indirectly) completely distorts a basic, key price in the economy. Interest rates are important in an economy and impact many decisions and other prices. People are just not able to make rational decisions in such an environment. I mean, since rationality consists of observing reality and acting accordingly, without basic, accurate information about the economic situation, rational decision-making is not possible.

I know that some argue that businessmen are smart and know that the interest rates do not reflect reality and adjust their thinking. I am sure that they do. But how much do they adjust? What can they think is the reality of the situation? I mean, without the facts, the businessman is only guessing. It might be a smart, experienced, wise guess. But it is still a guess, not knowledge. As a guess, it could still be way off. It could still be damaging. Further, since it has been literally decades since a market for capital has existed, any guess cannot be based on any actual market experience. A businessman’s wisdom is not an argument that changes the significance or the damage done by the manipulation of interest rates by the Fed.

The impact of the Fed is much wider than real or potential rising prices. People need to stop thinking that inflation is the only or even the major issue in every situation.

By the way, I was looking at copper and corn, two of the “commodities” that people are referring to when they say that “commodity” prices are rising. It may not be significant (you can’t really tell until sometime later), but both have backed off their recent high prices. I don’t know why yet, that is, I don’t know if it is a lowering of demand or if new production has come into the market, but if this trend continues, or if they just don’t keep going up, the contention that the Fed causes every bad economic consequence in the world will be even more questionable. Then the problem of being unscientific, i.e., not looking for causes, will have bigger consequences because it will make all criticism of the Fed look unsupported.

There is another error in the thinking of many about the economy. It is thinking that by knowing at least some of the consequences of the actions of government in the economy that one knows something about economics. Recently I have seen people dismiss comments I have made merely because I didn’t attribute what they viewed as negative economic consequences to a government. It is as if the only economic actor who has any efficacy is the government. Certainly, they conclude, that if anything happens that they don’t like it must be the fault of the government. There are several fallacies involved in such thinking, e.g., affirming the consequence, but the most basic fallacy is just not having taken the effort to learning the subject.

As a reader of Ayn Rand, we have learned that one must use one’s own judgment. This is important for many different, fundamental reasons, including moral ones. There is, however, an important context: a judgment without knowledge is not rational. That is, in order to decide, judge, conclude, make any kind of rational decision, one has to have knowledge of reality. Making a statement, declaring a judgment about an economic subject means you have to know economics, the fundamentals, and not marginally.

The fundamentals of economics involve the actions of individuals, people, acting as producers and consumers. It involves markets, prices, costs, production, and making economic choices. The actions of government overlay the reality of production and consumption. The actions of government affect what people do, the prices resulting from market actions, what people ultimately produce and consume. But the governmental actions are not fundamental to an economy, or its study. The fundamentals are the reason for the existence of markets, prices, and the creation of wealth. People acting for their own benefit are efficacious. Government action only corrupts.

It is often next to impossible to foretell what the results of government action is going to be because of the complexity of an economy, of the large number of actors, of differing interests and motives. In that government action is intended to get people to act differently than they would normally, the results cannot be good. But to identify and understand those results, you have to include the primary market participants. To ignore them is to drop the context. The primary actors are the individuals.