• The North Face v. The South Butt

    Jan 18 • Thinking Economically • 273 Views

    The North Face is suing The South Butt for trademark infringement. Concerned that there would be

    No Comments

    Read More
  • Nixon’s Pressure Cooker

    Jan 17 • Thinking Economically • 412 Views

    Just an interesting fact:
    Hearing that President Obama was concerned about preempting the sixth season premiere of “Lost”, I remembered that Richard Nixon had a similar situation.
    In 1971, when the inflation rate had reached 5.7%, he decided to impose wage and price controls and scheduled the speech explaining the program for a Sunday evening. Although Nixon and his advisors were worried that they would push “Bonanza” (does anyone remember Hoss and Little Joe?) off the air that evening, they proceeded because he had to announce the decision before the financial markets opened on Monday morning.
    A note:
    The economy had a “pressure cooker” reaction to Nixon’s economic policy. Inflation dropped during the controls and then skyrocketed to 11 percent when the lid was lifted during 1974.

    No Comments

    Read More
  • It’s Complicated

    Jan 16 • Thinking Economically • 310 Views

    Oversimplification concerns me.
    Some people are saying we should resuscitate Glass-Steagall. Passed in 1933, the Glass-Steagall Act (Banking Act of 1933) prohibited commercial banks from engaging in investment banking activities and created the FDIC. Also a part of 1933 legislation, Regulation Q established a ceiling on savings account interest rates. Together, Glass-Steagall and Regulation Q created so safe a banking environment that bank failure was virtually impossible. It worked for close to 40 years.

    Then though, during the late 1970s, dollars started fleeing the banks because interest rates were considerably higher elsewhere and FDIC insurance was an insufficient incentive for money to remain. Banks are a financial intermediary. When so much money leaves, the phenomenom is called “disintermediation”. Glass-Steagall and Regulation Q created banking restrictions that prevented commercial banks from vigorously competing against non-regulated financial firms. Glass-Steagall and Regulation Q led to disintermediation. Consequently, 1933 banking regulation was gradually phased out.
    Soon a dilemma emerged.
    With 1930s regulation we had no bank failures. But soon, we would have had few banks because their deposits were diminishing.
    With deregulation, money flowed into banks. However, their risky behavior lead to many bank failures. The probable result? Again, many fewer banks.
    As the heartbeat of our economy, banks pump our money from savers to borrowers. We need banks for our economy to function.
    Figuring out a new regulatory environment is just not going to be simple.

    Economic Ideas:
    Financial Intermediary: An institution that connects savers with borrowers.
    Disintermediation: When a financial institution is unable to connect savers and borrowers.

    No Comments

    Read More
  • An Imbalance in the Marriage Market

    Jan 15 • Thinking Economically • 248 Views

    Recent articles about skewed birth rates in China indicate 119 (and more) males are born for every 100 females. Discussing the imbalance, most commentary focused on marriage and how tough finding a wife will become.
    Some thoughts…
    1. On a demand/supply graph, does that mean a shift in the demand curve (of eligible husbands) to the right. But…is the supply curve inelastic which would mean that the number of potential wives remains almost the same? Will the supply curve (of eligible wives) eventually shift rightward?
    2. Moving to other issues, how will consumer spending be affected if there are so many more men? Clothing? Food? Cars?
    3. The job market? Types of jobs that men traditionally perform?
    Your thoughts?

    No Comments

    Read More
  • Insecurity about Homeland Security Spending

    Jan 14 • Thinking Economically • 254 Views

    I recommend looking at the 2005 American Enterprise Institute paper on homeland security spending at:

    Providing insight about where, how, and why approximately $44 billion is being spent, the report expresses concern about homeland security spending decisions. In this excerpt from page six, they discuss how decisions are made.

    “Imagine that after September 11th, all the players involved in airline security were in a room trying to figure out what to do. Some members of the public are scared to fly, others aren

    No Comments

    Read More