Archive for January, 2011

h1

From the “No Surprises Here Department”: Price Controls Cause Chaos in Ethiopian Markets

January 31, 2011

Michael Giberson

Ethiopia devalues currency => prices jump => consumers complain => government issues price controls to stop price gouging => goods disappear from market shelves. Yep, no surprises here.

From www.voanews.com:

Price Controls Cause Chaos in Ethiopian Markets

Price controls on many staple food items ordered by Ethiopia’s government early this month have reduced grocery bills for many low-income families. But now shopkeepers are upset and some basic items are disappearing from store shelves. Economists are concerned about the long-term effect of the government’s price-fixing strategy.

Confusion has been the order of the day at shops and markets across the Ethiopian capital this month. The government surprised businesses on January 6, the Ethiopian Christmas Eve, by announcing price caps on such items as meat, bread, rice, sugar, powdered milk and cooking oil.

Prime Minister Meles Zenawi said the caps were a response to price gouging by merchants taking advantage of global price hikes. He vowed to put a stop to what he called “market disorder.”

Consumers respond

The news was seen as a Christmas gift by many cash-strapped consumers, who had seen food prices jump after the government devalued the local currency, the Birr, by 17 percent in September.

In the first days after the price controls went into effect, Shenkut Teshome was among shoppers who rushed to markets to scoop up goods at newly lowered prices. He applauded government intervention as the only way to save impoverished Ethiopians from starvation.

“People are hoping they can buy with their salary a fair material at a fair price,” said Shenkut. “[Prices] were exaggerated and people cannot afford to buy with their salary and live at the same time, paying rent, this and that. The main thing is that they have enough food for their children.”

The price controls, however, have triggered chaos and tension in the local marketplace. Arguments, even occasional fistfights have been reported between irate shoppers and business operators as price controlled goods, such as cooking oil and oranges, have disappeared from shelves.

One customer at a local shop, who spoke on condition of anonymity, quipped that the net effect of the price controls is that nothing has changed. He said that earlier, goods on the shelves were too expensive to buy. Now the prices are lower, but the goods have disappeared.

Shopkeepers discouraged

Business owners said the past few weeks have been unbearable. Customers are unhappy, some products they bought before the price caps must be sold below cost, and neighborhood government representatives drop by several times a day to check that they are in compliance.

Shopkeepers contacted for this report all said they were afraid to give their names, but one who agreed to speak anonymously said she was ready to give up.

She said, “This is way too much for us. We are small traders. We don’t make much money. We get everything on credit, so when this stock is gone, we are closing up shop.”

Government defends

Representatives of Ethiopia’s Trade Ministry did not respond to numerous interview requests for this report. But government officials have been quoted as saying price controls were needed because retailers had raised prices blaming global price increases and the devaluation, although such factors had had no influence on the availability of their products.

In addition, four economists not affiliated with the government, all of whom have previously spoken to VOA on the record, declined to be quoted this time, saying the subject was too sensitive. But all four privately predicted that price fixing would not help in solving Ethiopia’s deep-rooted economic problems.

There is a little more in the story, none of it surprising.  See also “Nations Seek to Prevent Uprisings by Controlling Food Prices.”

ELSEWHERE:

  • In Texas a State Representative has introduced an anti-price gouging bill in the new legislative session. Nothing in the text of the proposed bill explains why the state needs a new law when it already has a law on price gouging.
  • A buyer complains about price gouging by sellers on eBay. “There was a time when you didn’t have to pay over retail to buy items off ebay. Not anymore.” Other buyers call the complainer an idiot (in somewhat nicer terms).
h1

Investors using municipal power company borrowing to maximize private returns?

January 31, 2011

Michael Giberson

Some regional power business developments have a few people in the area scratching their heads and wondering what is going on. An excellent article in Sunday’s Lubbock Avalanche-Journal explores the issue, yet still leaves local readers wondering what a quasi-public company is up to on our behalf.

In brief, High Plains Diversified Energy Company is a municipal utility company created as a public-private partnership between the West Texas Municipal Power Agency and Republic Power Partners, LP.  WTMPA is a generation and transmission collaboration among Lubbock Power & Light and three other smaller city power companies in the area. The point of HPDEC was and is to help foster development of area power supplies in advance of the loss of access by WTMPA to relatively low cost wholesale power from Xcel when contracts expire in 2019. Nothing particularly usual in any of this.

In the past few weeks HPDEC announced the purchase of two large natural gas power plants near Odessa, Texas. (Details from the HPDEC webite.) The deals are surprising in two ways: First, the power plants are in the ERCOT power system while Lubbock and the other WTMPA members are in the Southwest Power Pool. There is no way to get the power from there to here without spending several million dollars on transmission. Second, the two plants total about 1,500 MW in capacity, which by my rough guess is about three times the peak demand of WTMPA members. WTMPA members already have some generation capacity. Even assuming future load growth, the two plants may provide 1,000 MW more that current WTMPA members will need for at least two decades.

HPEDC’s business plans have always included the expectation that they would sell excess power elsewhere in Texas, but it is beginning to look like excess power is the tail that will wag the dog of supplying WTMPA members. As the newspaper story explains, WTMPA members are not yet sure they will want HPEDC’s power once WTMPA’s existing supply contracts run out in 2019.

Still, none of this would be particularly interesting except that it begins to look like HPDEC is not much more than a device used by a handful of private investors to leverage their money by using municipal bonds. And maybe that isn’t what is happening. As I understand it, so far, all the planning and development efforts have been funded entirely by the private investors. Maybe potential long term high returns are reasonable given the up front risks. But before WTMPA and local cities decide to support the municipal bond issuance that HPEDC needs to complete these two transactions, they should convince themselves that the long term value to WTMPA’s ultimate customers are worth the risks involved.

NOTES:

  • A local attorney, concerned about these developments, has established a website “Lubbock Power Grab: Electricity at What Cost?
  • The HPEDC website provides additional background.
  • I’d be less worried if municipal utility LP&L hadn’t recently become the monopoly retail power company in Lubbock. Up until about three months ago, power consumers in the city had a choice between LP&L and Xcel. If LP&L rates blew up because HPDEC investments go bad, consumers could have just jumped to Xcel.  Now consumers in Lubbock will be stuck with whatever the LP&L and WTMPA and HPDEC leadership gets us into.

 

h1

U.S. military aid funds tear gas used to repress peaceful protestors in Egypt

January 28, 2011

Lynne Kiesling

I am watching and following the events in Egypt with great interest. Of course as a technologist-of-sorts who studies complexity I am interested in the role of social media in enabling such a distributed movement to coalesce. Unlike what happened in Iran in June 2009, this uprising seems likely to have a longer-lasting impact on Egypt’s institutions.

The British journalists on Al Jazeera are asking about the domino effect and whether or not this will be the equivalent of 1989 and countries “throwing off the Soviet yoke”. Or will this bring a “meet the new boss, same as the old boss” switch from one authoritarian regime to another? The lessons of economics indicate that for the sake of the Egyptian people, their prosperity and well-being, and their living standards, institutional change that brings an increase in individual liberty.

There’s an important point relevant to U.S. policy and the economics and morality of our spending U.S. taxpayer dollars on military aid to such authoritarian regimes. We spend over $1 billion dollars on aid, including military aid, to Egypt. Today that authoritarian regime has turned its arms on its citizens who were protesting peacefully, including turning water cannons on people at prayer. Such aid has neither consequentialist nor moral economic foundations, should never have existed, and certainly should not continue.

Some in the media are starting to see this, although in today’s press conference no one pressed Robert Gibbs enough on this. CNN’s Ben Wederman is on the ground in Cairo, and sent this tweet:

Teenager showed me teargas canister “made in USA”. Saw the same thing in Tunisia. Time to reconsider US exports?

As the kids say these days, peace out.

h1

Understanding libertarian morality: “Regulations trigger a sense of resistance in me”

January 28, 2011

Michael Giberson

In the February 2011 issue of Reason Ronald Bailey explains some interesting work in political and moral psychology on libertarian morality. The research – by Jon Haidt at the University of Virginia, Ravi Iyer and Jesse Graham at the University of Southern California and Spassena Koleva and Peter Ditto at the University of California at Irvine – is summed up in a paper, “Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Roots of an Individualist Ideology.” Bailey does a good job of summarizing the paper, so I won’t go into details here. An insightful article both for libertarians and the people who care about them.

Co-author Iyer blogs on political psychology, and he has discussed the moral psychology of  libertarianism a number of times.  In a post discussing the paper mentioned, Iyer says core libertarian beliefs (“Libertarians believe in the importance of individual liberty”) may result from “lower levels of agreeableness and higher scores on a measure of psychological reactance.”

I self-identify as libertarian in outlook. I’m not sure about the agreeableness issue, but absolutely accept the attribution of higher scores on “a measure of psychological reactance.” I’ll proudly wear that banner. Iyer explains this last term with an example: “regulations trigger a sense of resistance in me.” You bet. Put that on a T-shirt and I’ll wear it to the next NARUC convention.

More on “psychological reactance” from Psychlopedia: “Psychological reactance is an aversive affective reaction in response to regulations or impositions that impinge on freedom and autonomy (Brehm, 1966, 1972, Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Wicklund, 1974). This reaction is especially common when individuals feel obliged to adopt a particular opinion or engage in a specific behavior.” I can kind of see that libertarian-minded folks would be exemplary in this respect.

Bailey ends his article with some somewhat gratuitous rah-rah-ing for libertarianism: “I find Haidt’s account of the birth of libertarian morality fairly convincing. But as a social psychologist, Haidt fails to discuss what is probably the most important and intriguing fact about libertarian morality: It changed history by enabling at least a portion of humanity to escape our natural state of abject poverty.”

Bailey’s comments inspire some speculative history. No doubt most human populations have a mix of people, some favoring the set of moral values that we associate with political liberals, others favoring the values associated with conservatives, and some favoring libertarian values. In perhaps most populations the liberals and conservatives dominate. Perhaps, however, early European settlers in America were in effect self-selected for a somewhat libertarian value set. These settlers were folks with minority religious views in their home countries – so they apparently were not terribly concerned about fitting in with the majority – and they finally took extreme measures in reaction to efforts to regulate their religious beliefs. The population that emerges in the European-based American settlements, then, turns out to be disproportionately high in libertarian values. Fast forward into the 1700s, observe the reactance to efforts by the English king to control American settlers, and soon you have a revolution.

Historians will probably find many holes in this self-celebratory story, but it seems plausible to me.

h1

I detect a fundamental tension in this headline on wind power

January 27, 2011

Michael Giberson

This amusement, courtesy of Examiner.com: “Wind power officially cost effective, AWEA hopes for more incentives from Feds.”

The like link is “http://www.examiner.com/green-living-in-national/wind-power-officially-cost-effective,” but I warn you that the site may try to serve you multiple ads, making the experience more trouble than the story is actually worth.

The article does, however, make good on the headline by reporting that the American Wind Energy Association clearly states that wind power is competitive in the current marketplace and that the Association continues to work for “a strong federal energy policy [to drive] the deployment of renewable energy technologies” and “defending and improving on state renewable” power mandates.

[HT to an anonymous Austin-area reader. Thanks for sharing.]

h1

Dear President Obama: You Don’t “Win” Economics

January 27, 2011

Lynne Kiesling

I’m teaching a principles/intro class this quarter (for the first time in longer than I care to remember!), and my students are all very clear on a concept that I’m afraid President Obama has forgotten … or at least that his rhetoric contradicts: economic activity is not a win-lose relationship. Using language like “America can win again!” runs directly counter to the fundamental basis of economic activity, and the fundamental reason why economic activity has created the amazing, unprecedented degree of growth and increases in living standards that we’ve experienced over the past two centuries.

What is that fundamental concept? Economic activity is grounded in mutually beneficial, voluntary exchange, and thus creates gains from trade.

Despite my long history as an athlete, I object strongly to President Obama’s win-lose rhetoric as applied to economic activity. It’s inaccurate, and it stifles widespread understanding of the mutually beneficial, cooperative, voluntary relationships that are essential to prosperity. It’s a metaphor he and his speechwriters should leave on the basketball court.

But it’s a metaphor that plays into his strategy to support taxpayer-funded government spending on such things as renewable energy, because the win-lose sports metaphor requires (however implicitly it’s stated) some form of central direction — a coach, a quarterback. In this vision, the economy needs guidance to “win!”, and of course President Obama will argue that such guidance can only come from experts, particularly “public-minded” government experts.

Studying economics shows just how flawed that vision is. The dynamics, the feedback among decentralized buyers and sellers in markets, have over time produced unprecedented growth, and have done so most successfully in situations in which such central direction is limited. Perhaps we principles of economics instructors should send President Obama a copy of I, Pencil (pdf) … or at least send him Milton Friedman’s discussion of it from Free to Choose:

UPDATE: Thinking about it more on the train on the way to work, I think it’s fair to say that one individual, or country, doesn’t “win” economic activity, but that we generally “win-win-win” through generating gains from trade. President Obama’s rhetoric misses that crucial point.

h1

The U.S. as natural gas exporter?

January 26, 2011

Michael Giberson

Reports of the continuing change to the U.S. domestic energy resource picture. From the Wall Street Journal, “U.S Firms Plan to Export Gas“:

The emergence of the massive amount of gas in the U.S. “is a transformative development” that markets, policy makers and industry are still coming to grips with, said Daniel Yergin, chairman of IHS CERA, an industry consultant.

“Up until 2007 and 2008, the assumption was that the U.S. was going to be a major importer of LNG and we would be integrated into the global market as a buyer,” he said. “It never occurred to anyone we may be integrated into it as a seller.”

For the present the U.S. economy continues to import more natural gas than it exports.

U.S. Natural Gas Imports & Exports: 1995-2009

h1

State of the Union watching advice: Don’t.

January 25, 2011

Michael Giberson

From ushistory.org on Thomas Jefferson: “Jefferson also found the State of the Union address to be too magisterial when delivered in person. He performed one and afterwards delivered them, as required by the constitution, only in writing.” (link to usconstitution.net added.)

Jefferson was right, the pomp and ceremony surrounding the State of the Union address contributes to a veneration of political leaders. Instead we should cultivate an attitude of caution toward our most successful politicians.

Don’t watch the State of the Union address, it only encourages them.

h1

An act purporting to ban gasoline zone pricing in Connecticut

January 24, 2011

Michael Giberson

A new legislative session in Connecticut brings with it another bill proposing to ban zone pricing of gasoline in the state. But the simplicity of the proposed bill makes it look like they’re not really trying.  Here is the body of the bill (all of it):

AN ACT BANNING GASOLINE ZONE PRICING.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

That the general statutes be amended to ban the wholesale pricing of gasoline based on a service station’s geographic location.

Statement of Purpose:

To ban the wholesale pricing of gasoline based on a service station’s geographic location.

Would it remain legal to price wholesale gasoline based upon the expected willingness-to-pay of a service station’s customer base?

(And if the wholesaler doesn’t price based upon an estimate of a station’s customers willingness-to-pay, will anything in Connecticut law prevent the station owner from setting retail prices based on what they think customers will pay? And assuming that question is answered in the negative, then isn’t it clear that the proposal is an attempt to give gasoline retailers what they want, not some sort of consumer protection?)

It isn’t surprising that the two sponsors of the bill (Rep. Tong, 147th District, and Rep. Fox, 146th District) are from the relatively-high-gasoline-price Stamford area. Maybe they even think that gasoline prices will be lower for their constituents if their bill became law. They should check in with New York to see how that state’s now-2-year-old zone pricing ban is going.

NOTE: More zone pricing posts here at KP.

h1

Ethanol blather courtesy of the EPA and the Financial Times

January 24, 2011

Michael Giberson

On Friday, the EPA announced it now believes it is safe to use fuels made with up to 15 percent ethanol in cars, SUVs and light-duty trucks manufactured between 2001 and 2006.  EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said, “Whenever sound science and the law support steps to allow more home-grown fuels in America’s vehicles, this administration takes those steps.” It is, as the Houston Chronicle reported, “a victory for ethanol advocates, including manufacturers, corn farmers and their supporters on Capitol Hill.”

“Sound science and the law?” The EPA action was to grant a waiver on a Clean Air Act-based limitation on selling gasoline with more than 10 percent ethanol for the vehicle classes mentioned. While the Clean Air Act also allows for waivers to be granted, I’d say that the law is no more than neutral on the matter. The essence of  ”sound science” is open inquiry, but it looks like the EPA pursued a rather selective course of study in order to grant this favor to the ethanol industry. From the press release it looks like all that the EPA considered was whether or not use of higher-content ethanol blends would damage emissions control systems. I think a broader inquiry is needed before concluding sound science supports steps to allow more “home-grown fuels.”

The Financial Times Energy Source blog quoted Jackson on “sound science and the law” and followed with quotes from sundry other lobbyists (a “move in the right direction,” “will further increase volatility in food markets,” all mandates “should be repealed,” “takes food out of the mouths of American consumers”). A somewhat limited range of reporting perhaps, but besides lobbyists pro and con who are you going to get to talk about an EPA announcement that comes out on a Friday?

Which is fine except that the FT blogger added, “What nobody is touching on, however, is that the US produces so much ethanol that it has been exporting it.” (The linked story in the FT reports, producers are making so much they are “running out of places to put this ethanol.”) And, the blogger continues, “Raising the content of ethanol in fuels at home will at least put more of the ethanol produced in the US in this country’s vehicles. … if we are going to produce ethanol, it does seem wrongheaded that this country is giving tax credits for the production of a biofuel that is shipped abroad to lower emissions elsewhere.”

Some modest amount of ethanol is used in gasoline as an oxygenate, allowing the gasoline to burn more cleanly (and so providing some local air quality benefits), but the primary alleged public policy reason to further subsidize and mandate use of ethanol is due to its supposed carbon neutrality. Since greenhouse gas accumulations are no respecters of national boundaries, it doesn’t really matter where in the world the ethanol gets burned for us to (allegedly) gain this (supposed) benefit.

I say, let’s let ethanol supporters ship as much as possible overseas. At least then my own vehicle isn’t at risk.

NOTE: Robert Rapier also comments on the decision, adding some informed speculation on how the politics are likely to play out. (Hint: “the ethanol industry usually gets what they wants.”)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 39 other followers