Fortsätt till huvudinnehåll

Why do booms and slumps happen?

Why do these periodic booms and slumps occur? According to Paul Ormerod, writing in the Sunday Times, it is all due to the summation of people's optimism and pessimism.

Well, it's a theory, but there is a more plausible explanation, which is that it is due to the interaction between the land market and the banking system. Put simply, booms turn to slumps when the capital values (selling prices) of land are driven up to the point that the actual yields (rentals), as a percentage of those capital values, are unacceptably low. What drives up these land prices is indeed optimism, the expectation first, that capital values will continue to rise and second, that the rentals that ultimately underpin those capital values, will also keep on rising. The latter expectation is ill-founded and the capital values are themselves boosted to unreasonably high levels as the banks become recklessly willing to lend for land purchase by recklessly willing borrowers with unrealistic expectations of capital appreciation. This reckless lending is on the security of the land whose value is being driven up by the same over-easy lending by all of the banks.

This is a classic self-feeding bubble. And since rents tend to rise, if at all, at quite a modest rate, the yields, as a percentage of selling prices, tend to fall. The point eventually comes where the slightest shock to the market can cause people to panic as they realise that they are over-committed and cannot pay back what they have borrowed, with the lenders realising that they have lent to people who cannot pay back, on the security of collateral whose value turns out to have been a bubble value. Pumping money is a cure of sorts as it depreciates the real price of the loan, but it is at the expense of the prudent, including savers and those who have lent prudently, who find their loan repaid in depreciated currency.

The pessimism Ormerod refers to has a real cause and is not just a mood-swing. Which seems to be where the economy of both the US and UK have got to. Underneath the pessimism is a genuine problem that only just starting its wretched course.

Kommentarer

Populära inlägg i den här bloggen

Importing people to sustain demand

I got involved in a discussion with a Youtuber called “Philosophy all along”. This was in connection with criticism of Trump’s policy of deporting illegal migrants, which he argued would be bad for the economy as it would reduce demand. This implies that there is a need to import people to sustain demand. There is no obvious reason why a population should not be able to consume everything that the same population produces. If it can not, then something else is going on. It is a basic principle that wages are the least that workers will accept to do a job. Wages are a share of the value added by workers through their wages. The remainder is distributed as economic rent, after government has taken its cut in taxes. Monopoly profit is a temporary surplus that after a delay gets absorbed into economic rent. Land values in Silicon Valley are an example of this; it's like a gold rush. The miners get little out of it. Rent and tax syphon purchasing power away from those who produce the g...

The dreadfulness of British governance

I wrote to my MP on two entirely separate issues recently. The first was to do with the replacement for the Inter City 125 train, which at £2.6 million per vehicle, is twice as expensive as it ought to be. The second concerned the benefits of a switch from business rate and Council Tax to a tax based on site values. In both cases, the replies were full of spurious, unsubstantiated assertions and completely flawed arguments. This is typical. You will not get an iota of sense from the government on any area of public policy at all - finance, economics, trade and employment, agriculture, housing, health, transport, energy. All junk. If you write to your MP you will invariably receive answers that are an insult to your intelligence, no matter what subject you are writing about. Of course they cannot understand statistics. They are innumerate. Whitehall is staffed with idiots with a high IQ. Look at their IT projects. And mind your purse, they will have that too.

How much more will the British tolerate?

The British are phlegmatic, tolerant and slow to rouse. Thus there was no great reaction after the terrorist attack in July 2005. The murder of Lee Rigby created a sense of outrage, but nothing more, since it appeared to be an isolated incident. Two serious incidents within a fortnight are another matter. Since the first major terrorist incident in 2001, authority has tried to persuade the public that Islam is a religion of peace, that these were isolated events, or the actions of deranged "lone wolves", having nothing to do with Islam, or to reassure that the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were infinitesimally small. These assurances are are beginning to wear thin. They no longer convince. If government does not act effectively, people will take the law into their own hands. What, however, would effective action look like? What sort of effective action would not amount to rough justice for a lot of innocent people? Given the difficulties of keeping large n...