Gramm, McCain and Obama

Phil Gramm spoke the truth. The economy is in a slow period, but the recession that many of us (including me) anticipated has not happened. IOW, despite significant structural problems in the economy (housing meltdown, inflation, oil prices, weak dollar and other policy mistakes), the economy is holding up. This is good news.

There is a disconnect between the real economy, which is doing OK, and the media picture of an economy about to fall into steep recession if not depression. It’s obvious what’s going on. First, the media industry is consolidating: old media businesses are failing, their employees either being laid off or worried about their jobs; new media businesses like Google are changing the fundamentals of the media industry. So there is a lot of fear and uncertainty among media people, and that uncertainty gets reflected in news reports and opinion columns.

Second, the big media are, as usual, doing their best to get the Democrat elected. This means that the economy is going to be terrible until the election, after which we will (assuming the Democrats win big) experience a remarkable recovery due to the farsighted policies of President Obama and the Democratic Congress.

Gramm was merely pointing out what was already obvious to serious observers. Maybe, for tactical political reasons, he shouldn’t have been as blunt as he was in the Washington Times interview, but that’s hindsight. The problem is that McCain immediately disassociated himself from Gramm in a way that weakens his campaign. Gramm, a former economics professor, is known for having a clue about economics. Indeed he was brought into McCain’s campaign to compensate for the candidate’s widely acknowledged weakness in this area. McCain’s hasty disavowal of Gramm therefore looked like a political panic. He was behaving like the old McCain, whose primary loyalty often appeared to be to the media and Democratic opinion. The media and Democrats decry what they see as a disastrous economy, therefore McCain could not allow Gramm’s reasonable statements to stand. He didn’t even try to spin them but flatly disavowed them. This was McCain at his worst.

The Gramm incident also showed Obama at his worst. While Obama showed consummate political skill in exploiting the McCain campaign’s missteps, he revealed in doing so the glibness and extreme arrogance that unnerve some of us. Here is the key part of Obama’s response to Gramm:

“Senator Phil Gramm, a top economic advisor to Senator McCain, just recently said that this is merely ‘a mental recession,'” Obama said during a campaign appearance in Virgina.
 
“Senator Gramm then deemed the United States, and I quote, ‘a nation of whiners,'” Obama said.
 
“Well, you know, America already has one Dr. Phil,” Obama said, referring to a tough-talking television talk show host and psychologist.
 
“When it comes to the economy, we don’t need another,” he said.
 
“I think it’s time we had a president who doesn’t deny our problems or blame the American people for them, but takes responsibility and provides the leadership to solve them. That’s the kind of president I will be.”

Obama, who appears to know little about economics, blames economist Gramm for denying the existence of problems that don’t exist. The arrogance comes through more clearly on video:

I had thought McCain was due for a bounce, but things aren’t looking good. And of course McCain is his own world of bad policies.

Interesting times ahead.

Microsoft

The Economist recently featured a cover photo of Bill Gates, the Chairman of Microsoft, since he is stepping down from his post and leaving Microsoft. Bill Gates is a larger-than-life figure because of his large foundation and his charitable works. However, while I am far from an expert on his non-work efforts, I do consider myself somewhat of an expert on Microsoft, and that is the focus of this post.

Microsoft has several business segments, as follows (per their most recent earnings release as found on their web site), along with quarterly revenues as follows:

– Client revenues (operating systems, Vista) – $4B
– Servers and tool revenues (Windows server, SQL Server) – $3B
– Online business revenues (MSN, others) – $1B
– Business system revenues (Office, Sharepoint) – $5B
– Entertainment (Xbox, mobile phones) – $2B

Thus the majority of their revenues and vast majority of their profits are from 1) operating systems (Vista), servers & tools (Windows server, SQL Server), and business systems (MS Office).

Read more

The Government Wants Your Opinion on Prediction-Markets Regulation

The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is soliciting public comment on the regulatory treatment of event (prediction) markets and prediction-market exchanges. These markets allow participants to take positions, in some cases with real-money consequences, on the odds of various events such as the election of particular political candidates, the frequency of hurricanes, and trial verdicts. (Intrade, whose quote board appears on the left margin of this blog, and of whom we are an affiliate, is an outstanding example of a prediction-markets exchange.) There is significant evidence that such markets provide the best available probabilities on the occurrence of many kinds of events and thus benefit all of us.

The central concern regarding prediction markets in the USA is their legal and regulatory classification. Currently it appears that some types of prediction markets are forbidden as “Internet gambling” (thank Congress), and there is uncertainty about others. Executives of offshore prediction-market exchanges have been harassed legally, and on at least one occasion arrested when they passed through this country. The uncertain US legal climate is chilling development of this beneficial industry, and there is interest from the industry in gaining for itself a regulatory safe-harbor similar to that enjoyed by established futures and options exchanges. Aside from the obvious libertarian argument for allowing business between consenting adults, I see no downside to the public and, as I suggested, the potential benefits are large.

The CFTC proposal and instructions for comment (you may comment by email) are HERE.

The CTFC is asking for comment on what its regulatory stance toward this nascent industry should be. IMO, Tom Bell’s proposal, posted at the indispensable Midas Oracle, is a good start. Tom will submit his response to the CFTC in petition form. If you want to sign on, contact him at [tbell at chapman dot edu] before noon PST on July 6. (N.B. Please see his post for complete details before you contact him.) I am going to sign Tom’s petition and I recommend that you do too, unless you have a better proposal — in which case please post it in the comments here or email it to me.

Unfortunately, comments must be received by the CFTC by July 7, which leaves little time for anything other than email unless you are in DC. But better to make your opinion known on short notice, as I will, than not at all.

The prediction-markets industry is a worthwhile cause with prominent enemies including Congressional anti-gambling activists, and significant parts of the established futures industry (nobody likes competition). It would be a great loss if this worthwhile new industry continued to be crippled by outdated regulatory practices.

(For more background, I strongly recommend this post by Chris Masse at Midas Oracle. Ignore the stuff about Wolfowitz, just scroll down to the “BACKGROUND INFO” links and start clicking.)

Samuelson on Why We Should (Not) Shoot the Speculators

Who are these offensive souls? Well, they often don’t fit the stereotype of sleazy high rollers: Many manage pension funds or university and foundation endowments.
 
… [Commodity investors] generally don’t buy the physical goods, whether oil or corn. Instead, they trade “futures contracts,” which are bets on future prices in, say, six months. For every trader betting on higher prices, another is betting on lower prices. These trades are matched. In the stock market, all investors (buyers and sellers) can profit in a rising market, and all can lose in a falling market. In futures markets, one trader’s gain is another’s loss.
 
Futures contracts enable commercial consumers and producers of commodities to hedge. Airlines can lock in fuel prices by buying oil futures; farmers can lock in selling prices for their grain by selling grain futures. The markets work because numerous financial players — “speculators” in it for the money — can take the other side of hedgers’ trades.

Samuelson’s Conclusion: “If politicians wish to point fingers of blame, they should start with themselves.”

RTWT.

NFL Economic Bizarro World

Carl and I have pounded practically everyone we know with the total economic sense shown by Billy Beane, GM of the Oakland Athletics mapped out in the outstanding book Moneyball. If you haven’t read it, you should. The book is a very easy read and quite entertaining even if you are not into baseball. Perfect summer reading.

I don’t want to ruin any of the book for those planning on reading it, but past this point will reveal a few spoilers to help me make a larger point.

Read more