Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: financial regulation

seat belt..safety...regulation...15589_4.17_000009563393XSmall

Statins, seat belts and unemployment benefits reduce some of life’s risks. Yes?

Not always…

Told that statin medication would diminish high cholesterol, some people eat more cheese, more ice cream, more steak. The result? Less healthy diets.

Knowing that seat belts increase auto safety, certain drivers become more reckless because there is less of a chance of dying in an accident. The result? An increase in pedestrian fatalities.

Designed as a cushion for those without jobs, unemployment insurance makes joblessness less risky. Economists have observed though, that when employers know workers have an alternative, they are not as concerned about firing them. The result? More unemployment.

A University of Chicago economist, Sam Peltzman has hypothesized that risk diminishing regulation has unintended consequences. Called the Peltzman Effect, sometimes the new incentives created by a risk reducing rule offset its benefit. The reason is the law of demand. When the cost of risk becomes cheaper, we might be willing to accept more of it.

Sources and resources: Below is a video of Sam Peltzman at Hebrew University explaining how the Peltzman Effect relates to financial regulation. As for my three examples, the first was anecdotal, the second from Dr. Peltzman’s research and the third from an Econtalk podcast interview of  economist Casey Mulligan.

 

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Obama/Biden and Romney/Ryan Issues

Presidential debate moderator Jim Lehrer said there would be six 15-minute segments in the first presidential debate on October 3rd. Devoting the entire first half to “the economy,” he will also cover healthcare, the role of government, and “governing.”

Like the candidates, let’s do some prepping.

The Economy:

In an excellent NY Times column, James Stewart asks, “Are Americans Better Off?” His answer initially takes us to the basic economic yardsticks that EconLife Election Economics looked at last week: GDP, unemployment, household income and inflation. Tepid, all are slowly improving but close to where they were when Mr. Obama entered office (except the inflation rate which has been low).

How affluent we feel--the wealth effect–is a different story. As Mr. Stewart points out, it all depends on who you are. Those who have more feel richer and more secure because stock markets are up, household debt is down, and home prices have started to rise. However, bombarded by foreclosures, student loans, auto loans and unemployment, the less affluent are not feeling better. Add to that anyone living on interest from treasuries and other securities with a “0″ return and you get many people who are not feeling better off.

Where are we? I hope that each candidate will explain whether we are better off.

Healthcare:

Statistics about US healthcare are tough to pin down when you challenge, defend and predict the impact of the Affordable Care Act of 2010. For example, you could judge healthcare on the basis of mortality rates. However, people disagree about mortality rates because the numbers you select depend on whether you look at the causes of death. With many statistics, equally defendable alternatives are probably feasible.

We can be sure, though, that as the average age of our population ascends, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will be increasingly stretched. I mention Social Security here because demand for its disability benefit has been soaring.

Where are we? I hope that each candidate will convey the daunting challenges we face because of increasingly inadequate revenue for government programs that relate to health care.

For more detail, you can look at 2 Election Economics posts, Assessing the Quality of Current US Healthcare and Our Aging Population.

Role of Government and Governing:

Here we have the great divide. Whether looking at taxes, healthcare or financial regulation, there is an ideological split. The Keynesian side says government, through taxation and regulation can perpetuate economic health and fairness. By contrast, the Adam Smith/Hayek/Friedman perspective says economic prosperity and US freedom depend on the incentive to benefit from hard work, education and entrepreneurship.

Where are we? I hope that each candidate explains and presents the implications of his economic philosophy.

EconLife presented more detail about Keynesian economics here, and the Hayekian view, here.

A final thought: Most articles about the presidential debates focus on “turning the tide,” Janet Brown, the person who organizes the debates, practicing, what to call the president, what each candidate needs to achieve. You see that sadly, few articles are preparing us for content.

Sources and Resources: My thanks to James Stewart for his ideas about being better off and to the LA Times, as the only news source I could locate with an outline of debate topics.

Election Economics Topics:

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

presidential election...campaign button_000016905913XSmall

University of Chicago professor Luigi Zingales tells the story of being asked to tape his windows during a tornado watch in Boston. A similar mandate in Italy, he said, would mean that the brother of the mayor was in the tape business. Furthermore, when instructed to stay inside, he recalled the Italian attitude toward government meant you would fare well if you did the opposite.

Dr. Zingale alluded to his experience in Boston when discussing the appropriate economic role for government. At its core, government needs to be trusted. One source of trust is simplicity and transparency.

For a prototype, he suggested we look at the 37 pages of the 1933 landmark banking law, Glass-Steagall. To eliminate banking abuses, Glass-Steagall simply said investment banks and commercial banks had to be separate businesses. Banking monoliths like J.P. Morgan & Co. had to divide themselves into institutions that provided traditional banking services and those that focused on securities work for businesses.

By contrast, covering everything from derivatives to systemic risk to consumer protection, the scope of Dodd-Frank is broad. As a result, to implement its 848 pages, specific rules have to be written. Currently 30% complete, 8843 pages of rules have been articulated.

The 11 pages, for example, that focus on the Volcker Rule are about diminishing banks’ risky behavior. Implementing those 11 pages, 4 regulatory agencies wrote a 298 page proposal with 383 questions and 1420 “subquestions.” Called an interactive Volcker rule map, it has 355 steps.

One agency that the law created has begun to function. In the news recently, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau initiated a suit against Capital One Financial. For deceptive marketing of consumer credit cards, Capital One has been fined $210 million.

How to assess Dodd Frank?

Supported by President Obama and opposed by Mitt Romney, Dodd-Frank had its second birthday on July 21. There is a definitive Democratic/Republican divide on the Act. While most of us agree that many financial institutions engaged in wrongdoing, we disagree about how to constrain them in the future.

And that returns us to Dr. Zingales. For you, does Dodd-Frank evoke more or less trust in our financial system? Your answer should help you select your candidate.

Here is the complete transcript and link to the podcast of Dr. Zingales’s excellent econtalk interview while this Davis-Polk interactive displays the current status of Dodd-Frank’s implementation. For more on the law itself, here is its text and here is an econlife post on it.

Election Economics Topics:

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

What is a “systemically important” financial institution? 2300 pages of financial regulation do not specifically tell us. Instead,regulatory agencies will have to decide. One study indicated that implementing new Dodd-Frank financial legislation will require details for more than 243 new financial rules.

Already, firms have begun responding. Legions of lobbyists are trying to influence agency decisions. Concerned about liability for an inaccurate credit rating, Moody’s and other ratings agencies have asked financial firms not to use their data when filing with the SEC even if a mortgage related security, for example, is required by law to have a rating. Jamie Dimon, Chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase responded to regulatory changes with, “If you’re a restaurant and you can’t charge for the soda, you’re going to charge more for the burger.” Email has also been affected with Goldman Sachs prohibiting all profanities.

The Economic Lesson

In a wonderful Teaching Company course of 36 half hour lectures, “Thinking About Capitalism”, from Professor Jerry Z. Muller, the never ending debate about the validity of profit seeking self-interested behavior consistently resurfaces. As I heard a chronological sequence of economic thought, starting with early Christianity and continuing with such thinkers as Edmund Burke, Voltaire, Henri Rousseau, Alexander Hamilton, and Karl Marx, back and forth the argument went between the costs and benefits of the market. With new financial regulation, isn’t the pendulum swinging toward constraining the market’s self-interest?

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

15682_4.6_000000667950XSmall

The Big Short by Michael Lewis (who also wrote The Blind Side) is a “hot read“ on Capital Hill. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill) recommended it. Chris Dodd (D-CT) referred to it during a speech on Fannie and Freddie. And, Senators Harry Reid (D-Nev), John Ensign (R-Nev.), and Ted Kaufman (D-Del.) were among several other lawmakers who said, “Read it.”

Meanwhile, in a fictitious NY Times letter called “Shorting Reform,” Lewis expressed withering skepticism about Congress.  

Interesting.

The Economic Lesson
The 34 page Glass-Steagall Act functioned productively between 1933 and the mid-1970s. Lessons from it?

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment