The ObamaCare Writedowns. WSJ Editorial
The corporate damage rolls in, and Democrats are shocked!
WSJ, Mar 27, 2010
It's been a banner week for Democrats: ObamaCare passed Congress in its final form on Thursday night, and the returns are already rolling in. Yesterday AT&T announced that it will be forced to make a $1 billion writedown due solely to the health bill, in what has become a wave of such corporate losses.
This wholesale destruction of wealth and capital came with more than ample warning. Turning over every couch cushion to make their new entitlement look affordable under Beltway accounting rules, Democrats decided to raise taxes on companies that do the public service of offering prescription drug benefits to their retirees instead of dumping them into Medicare. We and others warned this would lead to AT&T-like results, but like so many other ObamaCare objections Democrats waved them off as self-serving or "political."
Perhaps that explains why the Administration is now so touchy. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke took to the White House blog to write that while ObamaCare is great for business, "In the last few days, though, we have seen a couple of companies imply that reform will raise costs for them." In a Thursday interview on CNBC, Mr. Locke said "for them to come out, I think is premature and irresponsible."
Meanwhile, Henry Waxman and House Democrats announced yesterday that they will haul these companies in for an April 21 hearing because their judgment "appears to conflict with independent analyses, which show that the new law will expand coverage and bring down costs."
In other words, shoot the messenger. Black-letter financial accounting rules require that corporations immediately restate their earnings to reflect the present value of their long-term health liabilities, including a higher tax burden. Should these companies have played chicken with the Securities and Exchange Commission to avoid this politically inconvenient reality? Democrats don't like what their bill is doing in the real world, so they now want to intimidate CEOs into keeping quiet.
On top of AT&T's $1 billion, the writedown wave so far includes Deere & Co., $150 million; Caterpillar, $100 million; AK Steel, $31 million; 3M, $90 million; and Valero Energy, up to $20 million. Verizon has also warned its employees about its new higher health-care costs, and there will be many more in the coming days and weeks.
As Joe Biden might put it, this is a big, er, deal for shareholders and the economy. The consulting firm Towers Watson estimates that the total hit this year will reach nearly $14 billion, unless corporations cut retiree drug benefits when their labor contracts let them.
Meanwhile, John DiStaso of the New Hampshire Union Leader reported this week that ObamaCare could cost the Granite State's major ski resorts as much as $1 million in fines, because they hire large numbers of seasonal workers without offering health benefits. "The choices are pretty clear, either increase prices or cut costs, which could mean hiring fewer workers next winter," he wrote.
The Democratic political calculation with ObamaCare is the proverbial boiling frog: Gradually introduce a health-care entitlement by hiding the true costs, hook the middle class on new subsidies until they become unrepealable, but try to delay the adverse consequences and major new tax hikes so voters don't make the connection between their policy and the economic wreckage. But their bill was such a shoddy, jerry-rigged piece of work that the damage is coming sooner than even some critics expected.
Showing posts with label culture wars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label culture wars. Show all posts
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
The Truth about Health Insurance Premiums and Profits
The Truth about Health Insurance Premiums and Profits, by Alan Reynolds
Cato, Mar 15, 2010
On a recent Fox News debate about health insurance, Democratic political strategist Bob Beckel explained that, "The president needed an enemy, and the insurance companies are it."
Proving that point in a Pennsylvania stump speech, President Obama asked, "How much higher do premiums have to go before we do something about it? We can't have a system that works better for the insurance companies than it does for the American people."On February 20, President Obama used his weekly radio show to express outrage that a fraction of Californians buying individual Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) plans "are likely (sic) to see their rates go up anywhere from 35 to 39 percent." He used those figures to justify preempting state regulation "by ensuring that, if a rate increase is unreasonable and unjustified, health insurers must lower premiums, provide rebates, or take other actions to make premiums affordable."
There was always something peculiar about this desperate effort to demonize certain health insurers. Individual plans account for only 4 percent of the insurance market. So why do they account for 100 percent of the president's fulminations about insurance premiums? Could it be because insurance premiums for the other 96percent have not been rising much?
Nonprofit BCBS plans account for a third of the private health insurance market. Michigan's nonprofit asked for 56 percent premium hike without the national media taking that Hail Mary pass too seriously. But even Obama finds it difficult to accuse nonprofits of being too profitable, so he needed to pin his enemy badge on a for-profit firm – one of Wellpoint's "Anthem" BCBS plans.
Anthem of California's requested rate increase on individual policies was actually 20-35 percent. The only way it could get to 39percent would be if a policyholder insisted on a gold-plated Cadillac plan and also happened to move up into a higher age group. Besides, requesting a rate hike means nothing. Even Obama's radio address mentioned two requests that had been cut in half. Many are denied.
So, how many Californians have actually been faced with a 39 percent increase in their premiums? Exactly zero.
How many are really "likely" to be faced with even a 35 percent increase after state insurance regulators have their say? My forecast: Zero.
The president highlighted the "likely" increases of "35 to 39 percent" to suggest insurance companies in general were asking for huge premium increases just to boost their lavish profits. He complained that in the $1.2 trillion health insurance industry, "the five largest insurers made record profits of over $12 billion." But that puny sum includes WellPoint's sale of its pharmacy benefits management company NextRX to Express Scripts for $4.7 billion last April. Adding that $4.7 billion to WellPoint profits is like saying a family's income rose by $1 million because they sold a million-dollar home.
University of Michigan economist Mark Perry calculated that without the sale of NextRX, "WellPoint's profit margin would have been only 3.9 percent, the industry average profit margin would have been closer to 3percent"— $100 per policy. Yet Obama concluded that, "The bottom line is that the status quo is good for the insurance industry and bad for America."
The media echoed the president words endlessly, and wrote as though one company's hypothetical request for increases of 35 percent-39 percent were a nationwide threat—even to those with group insurance—rather than an unique and highly unlikely request that might (if magically approved) touch a miniscule number in a hostile state for health insurers.
"It doesn't take too many 39 percent increases, like the recent one proposed in California that has garnished so much attention, to put insurance out of reach," exclaimed a New York Times report. That same paper's editorial added, "The recently announced plan by Anthem Blue Cross in California to raise annual premiums by 35 to 39 percent for nearly a quarter of its individual subscribers is a chilling harbinger of what is to come if reform fails." Really?
Grasping for confirmation of the 39 percent figure, some reporters cited a Feb. 24 memo about Wellpoint written by journalist Scott Paltrow for The Center for American Progress Action Fund. Paltrow gathered news clippings suggesting premiums are "expected to" increase by "up to" some scary number in various states. For California, however, Paltrow's source was the president's speech. This Action Fund is a is no "liberal think tank," as the Wall Street Journal put it, but a 501(c)4 lobby which can participate in campaigns and elections. Founded by Bill Clinton's former chief of staff John Podesta, it's a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.
A Wall Street Journal story about Wellpoint's wish list for higher premiums cites the Department of Health and Human Services as its source. That means a shoddy four-page polemic at HealthReform.gov, "Insurance Companies Prosper, Families Suffer." That pamphlet, like another from the Commonwealth Fund, cites Duke Helfand, an L.A. Times reporter who wrote on Feb. 4 that, "brokers who sell these policies say they are fielding numerous calls from customers incensed over premium increases of 30percent to 39 percent."
So, the president's 39 percent figure came from Duke Helfand, who heard it from insurance brokers who, in turn, said they heard it from customers. The 39 percent figure referred to one person named Mary. After rounding Helfand's 30 percent up to 35 percent, however, that was good enough for the president's purposes.
Like Obama, the "Insurance Companies Prosper" pamphlet repeatedly confuses asking with getting. "Anthem Blue Cross isn't alone in insisting on premium hikes," it says; "Anthem of Connecticut requested an increase of 24 percent last year, which was rejected by the state." So what? If you went to your boss and insisted on a 24 percent raise, would that constitute proof that wages are rising too fast?
If Obama has been reduced to basing the redistribution of health care on the cost of health insurance premiums, he will need much better facts. Fortunately, credible statistics on health insurance premiums are readily available from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and Bureau of Labor Statistics.
CMS statistics (Table 12) reveal that the net cost of private health insurance – premiums minus benefits – fell by 2.8percent in 2008. Furthermore, CMS Health Spending Projections predict that spending on private health insurance will rise 2.5percent in 2010, while prices of medical goods and services rise by 2.8percent.
Consumers' cost of health premiums is also part of the detailed consumer price index. After all the overheated rhetoric about "requested" or "expected" increases of "up to" 39 percent, who would have imagined that the average consumer cost of health insurance premiums fell by 3.5 percent in 2008 and fell by another 3.2 percent in 2009?
The president's health insurance proposals hoped to use stern command-and-control techniques to run the health insurance system. It was all about minimizing free choice and maximizing brute force—forcing people to buy certain kinds of politically-designed insurance, forcing insurers to cover services many consumers do not want to pay for, and forcing insurers to curb or roll back premiums even as medical costs go up. The whole shaky apparatus was built upon even shakier statistics—including the purely hypothetical 39 percent increase in premiums that Mary's insurance agent reported to Duke Helfand.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
The U.S. in the World Race for Clean Electric Generating Capacity
The U.S. in the World Race for Clean Electric Generating Capacity
IER, March 15, 2010
China has already made its choice. China is spending about $9 billion a month on clean energy. It is also investing $44 billion by 2012 and $88 billion by 2020 in Ultra High Voltage transmission lines. These lines will allow China to transmit power from huge wind and solar farms far from its cities. While every country’s transmission needs are different, this is a clear sign of China’s commitment to developing renewable energy.
The United States, meanwhile, has fallen behind.
– U.S. Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu
In an attempt to generate support for implementing a cap on carbon dioxide, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and others paint a very dire picture of the U.S.-vs.-China race for clean energy, implying that China is quickly outstripping us in that race.[i] However, all the facts are not on the table. In both 2008 and 2009, the U.S. added more non-hydroelectric renewable capacity than it added traditional capacity (natural gas, coal, oil, and nuclear).[ii] At the end of 2009, the U.S. ranked first in wind capacity in the world with China’s wind capacity about 30 percent less than the U.S. level. At the end of 2008 (the most recent data available), the U.S. ranked fourth in solar capacity, with only Germany, Spain, and Japan having a larger amount. Where China is outstripping us in domestic construction is in coal-fired, nuclear, and hydroelectric generating technologies. Because of U.S. legal and regulatory red tape, it is much harder to build these energy technologies in the U.S. than in China.
What Does the Capacity Data Show for Wind and Solar Power?
According to the Solar Energy Industries Association, the U.S. ranks fourth in the world in solar capacity with 8,800 megawatts at the end of 2008.[iii] Germany, Spain, and Japan, in that order, had larger amounts of solar power at the end of 2008 than the U.S.[iv] China had just 0.3 megawatts of installed solar PV capacity at the end of 2009[v] or 0.003 percent of the solar capacity of the U.S.
According to the Global Wind Energy Council, the U.S. leads the world in wind generating capacity, with 35.2 gigawatts at the end of 2009; Germany is second with 25.8 gigawatts, and China is third with 25.1 gigawatts.[vi] In 2009, the U.S. installed almost 10 gigawatts of wind capacity, a record,[vii] and China installed 13 gigawatts.[viii]
Why is China Building Wind and Solar Capacity?
China builds wind and solar because ratepayers in other countries are paying them to do so. China has been taking advantage of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol to obtain funding for its solar and wind power.[ix] Under this program, administered by the United Nations, wealthy countries can contribute funds and get credit for “clean technology” built elsewhere as long as it is additional, that is, as long as that technology would not have been built otherwise. China is the world’s largest beneficiary of the program and has benefited to the point where 30 percent of its wind capacity is not operable because it is not connected to the grid.[x] However, in mid 2009, the U.N. started questioning whether the Chinese CDM program was in fact “additional,” because the U.N. found that China was lowering its subsidies to qualify for the program.[xi] That is, China was reducing its own government’s support in order to get international subsidies.
How Do the U.S. and China Electric Construction Programs Compare?
While China is building non-hydro renewable slightly faster than the United States, overall it is building new electrical generation much, much faster than the United States. The most comparable international database on electric generating capacity is found on the Energy Information Administration (EIA) website.[xii] Comparing the electric generating capacity data by technology type for the two countries, at the end of 2007 (the last year of comparable data), the Chinese had a total of 716 gigawatts of generating capacity, about 280 gigawatts less than the 995 gigawatts of capacity in the U.S.
The U.S. has been building generating capacity at a very slow rate, adding between 8 and 15 gigawatts a year since 2004. The Chinese in contrast, to fuel their bulging economy, have added between 75 and 106 gigawatts a year, from 2004 to 2007. Based on Secretary Chu’s comments, one might think that the additional capacity that China was adding was all non-hydroelectric renewable and nuclear capacity. However, that has not been the case. Between 2004 and 2007, the Chinese have added 226 gigawatts of fossil fuel generating capacity, 40 gigawatts of hydroelectric capacity, 2 gigawatts of nuclear capacity, and only 6 gigawatts of non-hydro renewable capacity.
What are China’s Electric Construction Plans?
Both China’s generating sector and its industrial sector rely heavily on coal, with 79 percent of its electric generation being coal-fired.[xiii] According to the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), from 2004 through 2007, China has been building 30 to 70 gigawatts of coal-fired power a year, and has about 70 gigawatts more under construction. NETL sees China building over 185 gigawatts of coal-fired plants in the future.[xiv] (See figure below.)
According to Australia, China is planning to build 500 coal-fired plants over the next ten years.[xv] That means: every week or so, for the next decade, China will open another large coal-fired power plant.[xvi] Australia has just signed a $60 billion deal with China to build a coal mine in Queensland and a 311-mile rail way for transporting the coal to the coast for export to China’s power plants.[xvii]
While China has been slow in adding nuclear power plants, it currently has 20 nuclear reactors under construction and more starting construction this year.[xviii] Four AP 1000 reactors are under construction at 2 different sites: Haiyang and Sanmen.[xix] These are the same reactors that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has ruled need additional analysis, testing, or design modifications of the shield building to ensure compliance with NRC requirements before they can be constructed in the U.S.[xx] China expects to achieve a total nuclear capacity of 60 gigawatts by 2020, and 120 to 160 gigawatts by 2030,[xxi] surpassing the total nuclear capacity of the United States.
China has a goal to produce 15 percent of its energy from renewables by 2020.[xxii] To help meet this goal, China is planning to build the world’s largest wind farm in the northwest part of the country. The plan is for 5 gigawatts in 2010, expanding to 20 gigawatts in 2020, at a cost of $1 million per megawatt,[xxiii] or $1,000 per kilowatt, about half the cost of an onshore wind unit in the U.S., according to the Energy Information Administration.[xxiv]
What about the U.S.?
The U.S. has made it difficult to build generating plants in this country, particularly coal-fired and nuclear power plants. According to NETL, only eight coal-fired plants totaling 3,218 megawatts became operational in the U.S. in 2009, the largest increase in coal-fired capacity additions in one year since 1991.[xxv] Prospects of cap-and-trade legislation, reviews and re-reviews by the Environmental Protection Agency, direct action protests, petition drives, renewable portfolio standards in many states, competition from wind power, and lawsuits have slowed the construction of new coal-fired plants.[xxvi] As of late February, activists had derailed 97 of the 151 new plants that were in the pipeline in May 2007. According to the Sierra Club, 126 coal plants have been stopped since 2001. And, for the first time in more than 6 years, not one new coal plant broke ground in 2009. The graph above compares the coal-plant additions in the U.S. to that of China, showing only a handful of coal plants under construction in the U.S. With new coal-fired plants extremely limited by the above, some are purporting that the current direction for activists may be to phase out the existing fleet of coal-fired power plants.[xxvii] Because the capital cost of most of our coal-fired plants has been paid, that fleet produces almost 50 percent of our electricity at very little cost. Average production costs for coal-fired generators in 2008 were only 2.75 cents per kilowatt hour, second to our nuclear plants at 1.87 cents per kilowatt hour.[xxviii]
No nuclear plant has started up in the U.S. since 1996,[xxix] and no construction permits have been issued since 1979.[xxx]NRC requirements, financing difficulties, and slow fulfillment of the nuclear provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 have slowed the construction of new nuclear power reactors. However, as part of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, President Obama announced last month that his administration is offering conditional commitments for $8.33 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear power construction and operation. Two new 1,100 megawatt Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactors are to be constructed at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Burke, Georgia, supplementing the two reactors already at the site. The two new nuclear generating units are expected to begin commercial operation in 2016 and 2017 at a cost of $14 billion. As part of the conditional loan guarantee deal, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission must determine if the AP1000 fulfills the regulatory requirements for a construction and operating license.[xxxi] (These are the same units permitted, licensed, and being constructed in China right now.) But, as a recent Wall Street Journal energy conference noted, loan guarantees are “meaningless in the absence of regulatory certainty.” Further, Obama’s budget cutbacks for Yucca Mountain, the proposed nuclear waste repository, are yet another signal that President Obama may not “walk the talk.”[xxxii]
Natural gas and wind power are the technologies that seem best able to surmount the financial, regulatory, and legal hurdles of getting plants permitted and operational. In 2008, the U.S. added over 15,000 megawatts of electric generating capacity, of which 4,556 megawatts was natural gas-fired and 8,136 megawatts was wind power.[xxxiii] However, organized local opposition has halted even some renewable energy projects by using “not in my back yard” (NIMBY) issues, changing zoning laws, opposing permits, filing lawsuits, and bleeding projects of their financing.[xxxiv]
The Energy information Administration projects that the U.S. will need 200 gigawatts of additional generating capacity by 2035 to replace capacity that will be retired and to meet new electricity demand.[xxxv] Of that amount, EIA expects that 13 percent will be coal-fired, 53 percent natural gas-fired, 4 percent will be from nuclear power, and 29 percent from renewable power (23 percent is expected to be wind power), assuming that no changes would be made to current laws and regulations.[xxxvi]
Conclusion
China realizes that it needs affordable energy to fuel its economic growth, and is building all forms of generating technologies at breakneck speed. By contrast, the electric generating construction program in the United States has slowed tremendously, owing to regulatory, financial, and legal problems. Without reasonably priced energy, it will be difficult to achieve high levels of economic growth in the U.S., and industry will move offshore where energy is more affordable. Will Secretary Chu’s policies get us to affordable energy, or will the administration’s policies divert us from obtaining the energy that we need to fuel our economy?
[i] Climate Wire, Energy policy: U.S. clean tech outpaced by China—Chu, March 9, 2010, http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2010/03/09/3 [ii] Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century, Renewables Global Status Report 2009 Update, May 13, 2009, http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE_GSR_2009_Update.pdf
[iii] http://www.seia.org/cs/about_solar_energy/industry_data
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Center for American Progress, Out of the Running, March 2010, http://www.eenews.net/public/25/14571/features/documents/2010/03/04/document_cw_01.pdf
[vi] Global Wind Energy Council, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=13, and Global Wind Energy Council, Global wind power boom continues amid economic woes, March 2, 2010, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=30&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=247&tx_ttnews[backPid]=4&cHash=1196e940a0
[vii] American Wind Energy Association, U.S. Wind Energy breaks all records, January 26, 2010, http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/01-26-10_AWEA_Q4_and_Year-End_Report_Release.html
[viii] Global Wind Energy Council, Global wind power boom continues amid economic woes, March 2, 2010, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=30&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=247&tx_ttnews[backPid]=4&cHash=1196e940a0
[ix] CNN, U.N. halts funds to China wind farms, December 1, 2010, http://edition.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/12/01/un.china.wind.ft/index.html
[x] The Wall Street Journal, “China’s Wind Farms Come with a Catch: Coal Plants”, September 28, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html
[xi] CNN, U.N. halts funds to China wind farms, December 1, 2010, http://edition.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/12/01/un.china.wind.ft/index.html
[xii]http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=2&pid=34&aid=7&cid=r1,&syid=2004&eyid=2008&unit=MK
[xiii] Energy information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2009, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html
[xiv] National Energy Technology Laboratory, Tracking New Coal-fired Power Plants, January 8, 2010, http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf
[xv] http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2009/01/29/china-building-500-coal-plants/
[xvi] The New York Times, “Pollution From Chinese Coal Casts a Global Shadow”, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11chinacoal.html?_r=1
[xvii] Australia Signs Huge China Coal Deal, http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/australia-signs-huge-china-coal-deal/
[xviii] Nuclear Power in China”, World Nuclear Association, November 6, 2009, www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html
[xix] Westinghouse News Releases, “Westinghouse and the Shaw Group Celebrate First Concrete Pour at Haiyang Nuclear Site in China”, September 29, 2009, http://westinghousenuclear.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=200
[xx] Westinghouse Statement Regarding NRC News Release on AP1000 Shield Building, http://westinghousenuclear.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=203
[xxi] Nuclear Power in China, World Nuclear Association, November 6, 2009, www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html
[xxii] USA Today, “China Pushes Solar, Wind Power Development”, http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2009-11-17-chinasolar17_CV_N.htm
[xxiii] The Wall Street Journal, “Wind Power: China’s Massive and Cheap Bet on Wind Farms”, July 6, 2009, http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/07/06/wind-power-chinas-massive-and-cheap-bet-on-wind-farms/
[xxiv] Energy information Administration, Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2009, Table 8.2, Electricity Market Module, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/index.html
[xxv] National Energy Technology Laboratory, Tracking New Coal-fired Power Plants, January 8, 2010, http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf
[xxvi] A messy but practical strategy for phasing out the U.S. coal fleet, http://www.grist.org/article/death-of-a-thousand-cuts/
[xxvii]Ibid.
[xxviii]http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphicsandcharts/uselectricityproductioncosts
[xxix] “Nuclear Power: Outlook for new U.S. Reactors”, Congressional Research Service, March 9, 2007, www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33442.pdf
[xxx] Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2008, Table 9.1, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec9_3.pdf
[xxxi] Environment News Service, Obama Backs First New U.S. Nuclear Plant with $8.3 Billion, February 16, 2010, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2010/2010-02-16-091.html
[xxxii] The Wall Street Journal, An Energy Head Fake, March 11,2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704784904575112144130306052.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop
[xxxiii] Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual, Tables 1.1 and 1.1.A, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html
[xxxiv] For a repository of stalled and stopped energy projects, see U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “Project No Project Energy-Back On Track”, http://pnp.uschamber.com/
[xxxv] Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2010 Early Release, Table A9, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/appa.pdf
[xxxvi] Ibid.
The United States, meanwhile, has fallen behind.
– U.S. Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu
In an attempt to generate support for implementing a cap on carbon dioxide, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and others paint a very dire picture of the U.S.-vs.-China race for clean energy, implying that China is quickly outstripping us in that race.[i] However, all the facts are not on the table. In both 2008 and 2009, the U.S. added more non-hydroelectric renewable capacity than it added traditional capacity (natural gas, coal, oil, and nuclear).[ii] At the end of 2009, the U.S. ranked first in wind capacity in the world with China’s wind capacity about 30 percent less than the U.S. level. At the end of 2008 (the most recent data available), the U.S. ranked fourth in solar capacity, with only Germany, Spain, and Japan having a larger amount. Where China is outstripping us in domestic construction is in coal-fired, nuclear, and hydroelectric generating technologies. Because of U.S. legal and regulatory red tape, it is much harder to build these energy technologies in the U.S. than in China.
What Does the Capacity Data Show for Wind and Solar Power?
According to the Solar Energy Industries Association, the U.S. ranks fourth in the world in solar capacity with 8,800 megawatts at the end of 2008.[iii] Germany, Spain, and Japan, in that order, had larger amounts of solar power at the end of 2008 than the U.S.[iv] China had just 0.3 megawatts of installed solar PV capacity at the end of 2009[v] or 0.003 percent of the solar capacity of the U.S.
According to the Global Wind Energy Council, the U.S. leads the world in wind generating capacity, with 35.2 gigawatts at the end of 2009; Germany is second with 25.8 gigawatts, and China is third with 25.1 gigawatts.[vi] In 2009, the U.S. installed almost 10 gigawatts of wind capacity, a record,[vii] and China installed 13 gigawatts.[viii]
Why is China Building Wind and Solar Capacity?
China builds wind and solar because ratepayers in other countries are paying them to do so. China has been taking advantage of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol to obtain funding for its solar and wind power.[ix] Under this program, administered by the United Nations, wealthy countries can contribute funds and get credit for “clean technology” built elsewhere as long as it is additional, that is, as long as that technology would not have been built otherwise. China is the world’s largest beneficiary of the program and has benefited to the point where 30 percent of its wind capacity is not operable because it is not connected to the grid.[x] However, in mid 2009, the U.N. started questioning whether the Chinese CDM program was in fact “additional,” because the U.N. found that China was lowering its subsidies to qualify for the program.[xi] That is, China was reducing its own government’s support in order to get international subsidies.
How Do the U.S. and China Electric Construction Programs Compare?
While China is building non-hydro renewable slightly faster than the United States, overall it is building new electrical generation much, much faster than the United States. The most comparable international database on electric generating capacity is found on the Energy Information Administration (EIA) website.[xii] Comparing the electric generating capacity data by technology type for the two countries, at the end of 2007 (the last year of comparable data), the Chinese had a total of 716 gigawatts of generating capacity, about 280 gigawatts less than the 995 gigawatts of capacity in the U.S.
The U.S. has been building generating capacity at a very slow rate, adding between 8 and 15 gigawatts a year since 2004. The Chinese in contrast, to fuel their bulging economy, have added between 75 and 106 gigawatts a year, from 2004 to 2007. Based on Secretary Chu’s comments, one might think that the additional capacity that China was adding was all non-hydroelectric renewable and nuclear capacity. However, that has not been the case. Between 2004 and 2007, the Chinese have added 226 gigawatts of fossil fuel generating capacity, 40 gigawatts of hydroelectric capacity, 2 gigawatts of nuclear capacity, and only 6 gigawatts of non-hydro renewable capacity.
What are China’s Electric Construction Plans?
Both China’s generating sector and its industrial sector rely heavily on coal, with 79 percent of its electric generation being coal-fired.[xiii] According to the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), from 2004 through 2007, China has been building 30 to 70 gigawatts of coal-fired power a year, and has about 70 gigawatts more under construction. NETL sees China building over 185 gigawatts of coal-fired plants in the future.[xiv] (See figure below.)
While China has been slow in adding nuclear power plants, it currently has 20 nuclear reactors under construction and more starting construction this year.[xviii] Four AP 1000 reactors are under construction at 2 different sites: Haiyang and Sanmen.[xix] These are the same reactors that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has ruled need additional analysis, testing, or design modifications of the shield building to ensure compliance with NRC requirements before they can be constructed in the U.S.[xx] China expects to achieve a total nuclear capacity of 60 gigawatts by 2020, and 120 to 160 gigawatts by 2030,[xxi] surpassing the total nuclear capacity of the United States.
China has a goal to produce 15 percent of its energy from renewables by 2020.[xxii] To help meet this goal, China is planning to build the world’s largest wind farm in the northwest part of the country. The plan is for 5 gigawatts in 2010, expanding to 20 gigawatts in 2020, at a cost of $1 million per megawatt,[xxiii] or $1,000 per kilowatt, about half the cost of an onshore wind unit in the U.S., according to the Energy Information Administration.[xxiv]
What about the U.S.?
The U.S. has made it difficult to build generating plants in this country, particularly coal-fired and nuclear power plants. According to NETL, only eight coal-fired plants totaling 3,218 megawatts became operational in the U.S. in 2009, the largest increase in coal-fired capacity additions in one year since 1991.[xxv] Prospects of cap-and-trade legislation, reviews and re-reviews by the Environmental Protection Agency, direct action protests, petition drives, renewable portfolio standards in many states, competition from wind power, and lawsuits have slowed the construction of new coal-fired plants.[xxvi] As of late February, activists had derailed 97 of the 151 new plants that were in the pipeline in May 2007. According to the Sierra Club, 126 coal plants have been stopped since 2001. And, for the first time in more than 6 years, not one new coal plant broke ground in 2009. The graph above compares the coal-plant additions in the U.S. to that of China, showing only a handful of coal plants under construction in the U.S. With new coal-fired plants extremely limited by the above, some are purporting that the current direction for activists may be to phase out the existing fleet of coal-fired power plants.[xxvii] Because the capital cost of most of our coal-fired plants has been paid, that fleet produces almost 50 percent of our electricity at very little cost. Average production costs for coal-fired generators in 2008 were only 2.75 cents per kilowatt hour, second to our nuclear plants at 1.87 cents per kilowatt hour.[xxviii]
No nuclear plant has started up in the U.S. since 1996,[xxix] and no construction permits have been issued since 1979.[xxx]NRC requirements, financing difficulties, and slow fulfillment of the nuclear provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 have slowed the construction of new nuclear power reactors. However, as part of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, President Obama announced last month that his administration is offering conditional commitments for $8.33 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear power construction and operation. Two new 1,100 megawatt Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactors are to be constructed at the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant in Burke, Georgia, supplementing the two reactors already at the site. The two new nuclear generating units are expected to begin commercial operation in 2016 and 2017 at a cost of $14 billion. As part of the conditional loan guarantee deal, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission must determine if the AP1000 fulfills the regulatory requirements for a construction and operating license.[xxxi] (These are the same units permitted, licensed, and being constructed in China right now.) But, as a recent Wall Street Journal energy conference noted, loan guarantees are “meaningless in the absence of regulatory certainty.” Further, Obama’s budget cutbacks for Yucca Mountain, the proposed nuclear waste repository, are yet another signal that President Obama may not “walk the talk.”[xxxii]
Natural gas and wind power are the technologies that seem best able to surmount the financial, regulatory, and legal hurdles of getting plants permitted and operational. In 2008, the U.S. added over 15,000 megawatts of electric generating capacity, of which 4,556 megawatts was natural gas-fired and 8,136 megawatts was wind power.[xxxiii] However, organized local opposition has halted even some renewable energy projects by using “not in my back yard” (NIMBY) issues, changing zoning laws, opposing permits, filing lawsuits, and bleeding projects of their financing.[xxxiv]
The Energy information Administration projects that the U.S. will need 200 gigawatts of additional generating capacity by 2035 to replace capacity that will be retired and to meet new electricity demand.[xxxv] Of that amount, EIA expects that 13 percent will be coal-fired, 53 percent natural gas-fired, 4 percent will be from nuclear power, and 29 percent from renewable power (23 percent is expected to be wind power), assuming that no changes would be made to current laws and regulations.[xxxvi]
Conclusion
China realizes that it needs affordable energy to fuel its economic growth, and is building all forms of generating technologies at breakneck speed. By contrast, the electric generating construction program in the United States has slowed tremendously, owing to regulatory, financial, and legal problems. Without reasonably priced energy, it will be difficult to achieve high levels of economic growth in the U.S., and industry will move offshore where energy is more affordable. Will Secretary Chu’s policies get us to affordable energy, or will the administration’s policies divert us from obtaining the energy that we need to fuel our economy?
[i] Climate Wire, Energy policy: U.S. clean tech outpaced by China—Chu, March 9, 2010, http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2010/03/09/3 [ii] Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century, Renewables Global Status Report 2009 Update, May 13, 2009, http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE_GSR_2009_Update.pdf
[iii] http://www.seia.org/cs/about_solar_energy/industry_data
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Center for American Progress, Out of the Running, March 2010, http://www.eenews.net/public/25/14571/features/documents/2010/03/04/document_cw_01.pdf
[vi] Global Wind Energy Council, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=13, and Global Wind Energy Council, Global wind power boom continues amid economic woes, March 2, 2010, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=30&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=247&tx_ttnews[backPid]=4&cHash=1196e940a0
[vii] American Wind Energy Association, U.S. Wind Energy breaks all records, January 26, 2010, http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/01-26-10_AWEA_Q4_and_Year-End_Report_Release.html
[viii] Global Wind Energy Council, Global wind power boom continues amid economic woes, March 2, 2010, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=30&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=247&tx_ttnews[backPid]=4&cHash=1196e940a0
[ix] CNN, U.N. halts funds to China wind farms, December 1, 2010, http://edition.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/12/01/un.china.wind.ft/index.html
[x] The Wall Street Journal, “China’s Wind Farms Come with a Catch: Coal Plants”, September 28, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html
[xi] CNN, U.N. halts funds to China wind farms, December 1, 2010, http://edition.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/12/01/un.china.wind.ft/index.html
[xii]http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=2&pid=34&aid=7&cid=r1,&syid=2004&eyid=2008&unit=MK
[xiii] Energy information Administration, International Energy Outlook 2009, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/index.html
[xiv] National Energy Technology Laboratory, Tracking New Coal-fired Power Plants, January 8, 2010, http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf
[xv] http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2009/01/29/china-building-500-coal-plants/
[xvi] The New York Times, “Pollution From Chinese Coal Casts a Global Shadow”, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11chinacoal.html?_r=1
[xvii] Australia Signs Huge China Coal Deal, http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2010/02/06/australia-signs-huge-china-coal-deal/
[xviii] Nuclear Power in China”, World Nuclear Association, November 6, 2009, www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html
[xix] Westinghouse News Releases, “Westinghouse and the Shaw Group Celebrate First Concrete Pour at Haiyang Nuclear Site in China”, September 29, 2009, http://westinghousenuclear.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=200
[xx] Westinghouse Statement Regarding NRC News Release on AP1000 Shield Building, http://westinghousenuclear.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=203
[xxi] Nuclear Power in China, World Nuclear Association, November 6, 2009, www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html
[xxii] USA Today, “China Pushes Solar, Wind Power Development”, http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2009-11-17-chinasolar17_CV_N.htm
[xxiii] The Wall Street Journal, “Wind Power: China’s Massive and Cheap Bet on Wind Farms”, July 6, 2009, http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/07/06/wind-power-chinas-massive-and-cheap-bet-on-wind-farms/
[xxiv] Energy information Administration, Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2009, Table 8.2, Electricity Market Module, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/index.html
[xxv] National Energy Technology Laboratory, Tracking New Coal-fired Power Plants, January 8, 2010, http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf
[xxvi] A messy but practical strategy for phasing out the U.S. coal fleet, http://www.grist.org/article/death-of-a-thousand-cuts/
[xxvii]Ibid.
[xxviii]http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/reliableandaffordableenergy/graphicsandcharts/uselectricityproductioncosts
[xxix] “Nuclear Power: Outlook for new U.S. Reactors”, Congressional Research Service, March 9, 2007, www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33442.pdf
[xxx] Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2008, Table 9.1, http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec9_3.pdf
[xxxi] Environment News Service, Obama Backs First New U.S. Nuclear Plant with $8.3 Billion, February 16, 2010, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2010/2010-02-16-091.html
[xxxii] The Wall Street Journal, An Energy Head Fake, March 11,2010, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704784904575112144130306052.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop
[xxxiii] Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual, Tables 1.1 and 1.1.A, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html
[xxxiv] For a repository of stalled and stopped energy projects, see U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “Project No Project Energy-Back On Track”, http://pnp.uschamber.com/
[xxxv] Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2010 Early Release, Table A9, http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/appa.pdf
[xxxvi] Ibid.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
The notion of objective truth has been abandoned and the peer review process gives scholars ample opportunity to reward friends and punish enemies
Climategate Was an Academic Disaster Waiting to Happen. By PETER BERKOWITZ
The notion of objective truth has been abandoned and the peer review process gives scholars ample opportunity to reward friends and punish enemies.WSJ, Mar 13, 2010
Last fall, emails revealed that scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England and colleagues in the U.S. and around the globe deliberately distorted data to support dire global warming scenarios and sought to block scholars with a different view from getting published. What does this scandal say generally about the intellectual habits and norms at our universities?
This is a legitimate question, because our universities, which above all should be cultivating intellectual virtue, are in their day-to-day operations fostering the opposite. Fashionable ideas, the convenience of professors, and the bureaucratic structures of academic life combine to encourage students and faculty alike to defend arguments for which they lack vital information. They pretend to knowledge they don't possess and invoke the authority of rank and status instead of reasoned debate.
Consider the undergraduate curriculum. Over the last several decades, departments have watered down the requirements needed to complete a major, while core curricula have been hollowed out or abandoned. Only a handful of the nation's leading universities—Columbia and the University of Chicago at the forefront—insist that all undergraduates must read a common set of books and become conversant with the main ideas and events that shaped Western history and the larger world.
There are no good pedagogical reasons for abandoning the core. Professors and administrators argue that students need and deserve the freedom to shape their own course of study. But how can students who do not know the basics make intelligent decisions about the books they should read and the perspectives they should master?
The real reasons for releasing students from rigorous departmental requirements and fixed core courses are quite different. One is that professors prefer to teach boutique classes focusing on their narrow areas of specialization. In addition, they believe that dropping requirements will lure more students to their departments, which translates into more faculty slots for like-minded colleagues. By far, though, the most important reason is that faculty generally reject the common sense idea that there is a basic body of knowledge that all students should learn. This is consistent with the popular campus dogma that all morals and cultures are relative and that objective knowledge is impossible.
The deplorable but predictable result is that professors constantly call upon students to engage in discussions and write papers in the absence of fundamental background knowledge. Good students quickly absorb the curriculum's unwritten lesson—cutting corners and vigorously pressing strong but unsubstantiated opinions is the path to intellectual achievement.
The production of scholarship also fosters intellectual vice. Take the peer review process, which because of its supposed impartiality and objectivity is intended to distinguish the work of scholars from that of journalists and commercial authors.
Academic journals typically adopt a double blind system, concealing the names of both authors and reviewers. But any competent scholar can determine an article's approach or analytical framework within the first few paragraphs. Scholars are likely to have colleagues and graduate students they support and whose careers they wish to advance. A few may even have colleagues whose careers, along with those of their graduate students, they would like to tarnish or destroy. There is no check to prevent them from benefiting their friends by providing preferential treatment for their orientation and similarly punishing their enemies.
That's because the peer review process violates a fundamental principle of fairness. We don't allow judges to be parties to a controversy they are adjudicating, and don't permit athletes to umpire games in which they are playing. In both cases the concern is that their interest in the outcome will bias their judgment and corrupt their integrity. So why should we expect scholars, especially operating under the cloak of anonymity, to fairly and honorably evaluate the work of allies and rivals?
Some university presses exacerbate the problem. Harvard University Press tells a reviewer the name of a book manuscript's author but withholds the reviewer's identity from the author. It would be hard to design a system that provided reviewers more opportunity to reward friends and punish enemies.
Harvard Press assumes that its editors will detect and avoid conflicts of interest. But if reviewers are in the same scholarly field as, or in a field related to that of, the author—and why would they be asked for an evaluation if they weren't?—then the reviewer will always have a conflict of interest.
Then there is the abuse of confidentiality and the overreliance on arguments from authority in hiring, promotion and tenure decisions. Owing to the premium the academy places on specialization, most university departments today contain several fields, and within them several subfields. Thus departmental colleagues are regularly asked to evaluate scholarly work in which they have little more expertise than the man or woman on the street.
Often unable to form independent professional judgments—but unwilling to recuse themselves from important personnel decisions—faculty members routinely rely on confidential letters of evaluation from scholars at other universities. Once again, these letters are written—and solicited—by scholars who are irreducibly interested parties.
There are no easy fixes to this state of affairs. Worse, our universities don't recognize they have a problem. Instead, professors and university administrators are inclined to indignantly dismiss concerns about the curriculum, peer review, and hiring, promotion and tenure decisions as cynically calling into question their good character. But these concerns are actually rooted in the democratic conviction that professors and university administrators are not cut from finer cloth than their fellow citizens.
Our universities shape young men's and women's sensibilities, and our professors are supposed to serve as guardians of authoritative knowledge and exemplars of serious and systematic inquiry. Yet our campuses are home today to a toxic confluence of fashionable ideas that undermine the very notion of intellectual virtue, and to flawed educational practices and procedures that give intellectual vice ample room to flourish.
Just look at Climategate.
Mr. Berkowitz is a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.
The notion of objective truth has been abandoned and the peer review process gives scholars ample opportunity to reward friends and punish enemies.WSJ, Mar 13, 2010
Last fall, emails revealed that scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England and colleagues in the U.S. and around the globe deliberately distorted data to support dire global warming scenarios and sought to block scholars with a different view from getting published. What does this scandal say generally about the intellectual habits and norms at our universities?
This is a legitimate question, because our universities, which above all should be cultivating intellectual virtue, are in their day-to-day operations fostering the opposite. Fashionable ideas, the convenience of professors, and the bureaucratic structures of academic life combine to encourage students and faculty alike to defend arguments for which they lack vital information. They pretend to knowledge they don't possess and invoke the authority of rank and status instead of reasoned debate.
Consider the undergraduate curriculum. Over the last several decades, departments have watered down the requirements needed to complete a major, while core curricula have been hollowed out or abandoned. Only a handful of the nation's leading universities—Columbia and the University of Chicago at the forefront—insist that all undergraduates must read a common set of books and become conversant with the main ideas and events that shaped Western history and the larger world.
There are no good pedagogical reasons for abandoning the core. Professors and administrators argue that students need and deserve the freedom to shape their own course of study. But how can students who do not know the basics make intelligent decisions about the books they should read and the perspectives they should master?
The real reasons for releasing students from rigorous departmental requirements and fixed core courses are quite different. One is that professors prefer to teach boutique classes focusing on their narrow areas of specialization. In addition, they believe that dropping requirements will lure more students to their departments, which translates into more faculty slots for like-minded colleagues. By far, though, the most important reason is that faculty generally reject the common sense idea that there is a basic body of knowledge that all students should learn. This is consistent with the popular campus dogma that all morals and cultures are relative and that objective knowledge is impossible.
The deplorable but predictable result is that professors constantly call upon students to engage in discussions and write papers in the absence of fundamental background knowledge. Good students quickly absorb the curriculum's unwritten lesson—cutting corners and vigorously pressing strong but unsubstantiated opinions is the path to intellectual achievement.
The production of scholarship also fosters intellectual vice. Take the peer review process, which because of its supposed impartiality and objectivity is intended to distinguish the work of scholars from that of journalists and commercial authors.
Academic journals typically adopt a double blind system, concealing the names of both authors and reviewers. But any competent scholar can determine an article's approach or analytical framework within the first few paragraphs. Scholars are likely to have colleagues and graduate students they support and whose careers they wish to advance. A few may even have colleagues whose careers, along with those of their graduate students, they would like to tarnish or destroy. There is no check to prevent them from benefiting their friends by providing preferential treatment for their orientation and similarly punishing their enemies.
That's because the peer review process violates a fundamental principle of fairness. We don't allow judges to be parties to a controversy they are adjudicating, and don't permit athletes to umpire games in which they are playing. In both cases the concern is that their interest in the outcome will bias their judgment and corrupt their integrity. So why should we expect scholars, especially operating under the cloak of anonymity, to fairly and honorably evaluate the work of allies and rivals?
Some university presses exacerbate the problem. Harvard University Press tells a reviewer the name of a book manuscript's author but withholds the reviewer's identity from the author. It would be hard to design a system that provided reviewers more opportunity to reward friends and punish enemies.
Harvard Press assumes that its editors will detect and avoid conflicts of interest. But if reviewers are in the same scholarly field as, or in a field related to that of, the author—and why would they be asked for an evaluation if they weren't?—then the reviewer will always have a conflict of interest.
Then there is the abuse of confidentiality and the overreliance on arguments from authority in hiring, promotion and tenure decisions. Owing to the premium the academy places on specialization, most university departments today contain several fields, and within them several subfields. Thus departmental colleagues are regularly asked to evaluate scholarly work in which they have little more expertise than the man or woman on the street.
Often unable to form independent professional judgments—but unwilling to recuse themselves from important personnel decisions—faculty members routinely rely on confidential letters of evaluation from scholars at other universities. Once again, these letters are written—and solicited—by scholars who are irreducibly interested parties.
There are no easy fixes to this state of affairs. Worse, our universities don't recognize they have a problem. Instead, professors and university administrators are inclined to indignantly dismiss concerns about the curriculum, peer review, and hiring, promotion and tenure decisions as cynically calling into question their good character. But these concerns are actually rooted in the democratic conviction that professors and university administrators are not cut from finer cloth than their fellow citizens.
Our universities shape young men's and women's sensibilities, and our professors are supposed to serve as guardians of authoritative knowledge and exemplars of serious and systematic inquiry. Yet our campuses are home today to a toxic confluence of fashionable ideas that undermine the very notion of intellectual virtue, and to flawed educational practices and procedures that give intellectual vice ample room to flourish.
Just look at Climategate.
Mr. Berkowitz is a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Europeans' worship of the state and corresponding suspicion of free markets doom their countries to economic stagnation
Europe's Crisis of Ideas. By BRET STEPHENS
Europeans' worship of the state and corresponding suspicion of free markets doom their countries to economic stagnation.WSJ, Feb 23, 2010
Europe is in a crisis. Superficially, the crisis is about money: the Greek budget, a German-led bailout, the risk of contagion, moral hazard, the fragility of the euro. Fundamentally, it's a crisis of ideas.
At last month's meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou offered a view on the source of Europe's woes. "This is an attack on the euro zone by certain other interests, political or financial," he said, without specifying who or what those interests might be. In Madrid, the government has reportedly ordered its intelligence service to investigate "collusion" between U.S. investors and the media to bring Spain's economy low.
Maybe the paladins of Spanish and Greek politics seriously imagine that hedge-fund managers sit around dimly lit conference rooms like so many Lex Luthors and—cue the sinister cackles—decide on a whim to sink this or that economy. Or maybe they think there are political dividends to reap by playing to peanut galleries already inclined toward these kinds of fantasies.
Whichever way, the recrudescence of conspiracy-theory politics, among governments that supposedly belong to the First World, is just one symptom of Europe's intellectual malaise. On the other end of the spectrum is the view that the Greek crisis is the perfect opportunity to expand the regulatory reach and taxing authority of Brussels. Never mind that Greece's economic woes are transparently the result of a government spending beyond its means while failing to promote growth. In this reading of events, the ideal resolution is to extend the prerogatives of a bureaucracy to an even higher level of unaccountability. This is a bit like saying that if your toenail appears to be seriously infected, consider having brain surgery.
Why do Europeans so often find themselves trapped in this sterile dialectic of populist obscurantism and technocratic irrelevancy? Largely because those are the options that remain when other modes of analysis and prescription have been ruled out of bounds. "All European economic policies are the cultural derivatives of one dominant, nearly totalitarian statist ideology: the state is good, the market is bad," says French economist Guy Sorman. The free market, he adds, is "perceived as fundamentally American, while statism is the ultimate form of patriotism."
In the U.S., faith in the general efficacy of markets isn't simply a cultural inheritance. It is sustained by the work of serious university economics departments; think tanks like the Hoover Institution and grant-makers like the Kauffman Foundation, plus a few editorial pages here and there. It's also the default position of the Republican Party, at least rhetorically.
By contrast, in continental Europe the dominant mode of conservative politics is sometimes pro-business but rarely pro-market: During his 12-year presidency of France, Jacques Chirac railed against "Anglo-Saxon ultraliberalism," a phrase that became so ubiquitous as to almost obscure its crassly xenophobic appeal. There are think tanks, but they are almost invariably funded by political parties and hew to the party line. Not a single economics faculty in Europe is remotely competitive with a Chicago or a George Mason: Since 1990, only three of the 36 winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics were then affiliated with a European university.
Then there is the media. Last week, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, who leads the country's market-friendly Free Democrats, took to the pages of Die Welt to lament that Germany's working poor make less than welfare recipients. "For too long," he wrote, "we have perfected in Germany the redistribution [of wealth], forgetting where prosperity comes from."
For his banal observations, Mr. Westerwelle was roundly accused of "[defaming] millions of welfare recipients" and urged to apologize to them. It takes a remarkably stultified intellectual climate for an op-ed to spark this kind of brouhaha: It is the empire of the Emperor's New Clothes, adapted to the 21st century welfare state.
This is all the more remarkable given that Europe's economic travails aren't exactly difficult to grasp. Greece in a nutshell? It costs $10,218 to obtain all the permitting needed to start a new business there, according to Harvard economist Alberto Alesina. In the U.S., it takes $166. But tyrannies of thought are hard to break, especially when the beneficiaries of state largess—from college students to government workers to captains of subsidized industries—become a political majority. The U.S. may now be approaching just such a point itself.
Is there a way out? "I am deeply convinced," says Mr. Sorman, "that I belong to a continuous tradition of liberty against the state, with a fine pedigree: Montesquieu, Tocqueville, Jean Baptiste Say, Jacques Rueff, Raymond Aron, Jean-Francois Revel." Not an Anglo-Saxon name among them. Europe's recovery—and the recovery of Europe—will come only when they are no longer prophets without honor in their own lands.
Europeans' worship of the state and corresponding suspicion of free markets doom their countries to economic stagnation.WSJ, Feb 23, 2010
Europe is in a crisis. Superficially, the crisis is about money: the Greek budget, a German-led bailout, the risk of contagion, moral hazard, the fragility of the euro. Fundamentally, it's a crisis of ideas.
At last month's meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou offered a view on the source of Europe's woes. "This is an attack on the euro zone by certain other interests, political or financial," he said, without specifying who or what those interests might be. In Madrid, the government has reportedly ordered its intelligence service to investigate "collusion" between U.S. investors and the media to bring Spain's economy low.
Maybe the paladins of Spanish and Greek politics seriously imagine that hedge-fund managers sit around dimly lit conference rooms like so many Lex Luthors and—cue the sinister cackles—decide on a whim to sink this or that economy. Or maybe they think there are political dividends to reap by playing to peanut galleries already inclined toward these kinds of fantasies.
Whichever way, the recrudescence of conspiracy-theory politics, among governments that supposedly belong to the First World, is just one symptom of Europe's intellectual malaise. On the other end of the spectrum is the view that the Greek crisis is the perfect opportunity to expand the regulatory reach and taxing authority of Brussels. Never mind that Greece's economic woes are transparently the result of a government spending beyond its means while failing to promote growth. In this reading of events, the ideal resolution is to extend the prerogatives of a bureaucracy to an even higher level of unaccountability. This is a bit like saying that if your toenail appears to be seriously infected, consider having brain surgery.
Why do Europeans so often find themselves trapped in this sterile dialectic of populist obscurantism and technocratic irrelevancy? Largely because those are the options that remain when other modes of analysis and prescription have been ruled out of bounds. "All European economic policies are the cultural derivatives of one dominant, nearly totalitarian statist ideology: the state is good, the market is bad," says French economist Guy Sorman. The free market, he adds, is "perceived as fundamentally American, while statism is the ultimate form of patriotism."
In the U.S., faith in the general efficacy of markets isn't simply a cultural inheritance. It is sustained by the work of serious university economics departments; think tanks like the Hoover Institution and grant-makers like the Kauffman Foundation, plus a few editorial pages here and there. It's also the default position of the Republican Party, at least rhetorically.
By contrast, in continental Europe the dominant mode of conservative politics is sometimes pro-business but rarely pro-market: During his 12-year presidency of France, Jacques Chirac railed against "Anglo-Saxon ultraliberalism," a phrase that became so ubiquitous as to almost obscure its crassly xenophobic appeal. There are think tanks, but they are almost invariably funded by political parties and hew to the party line. Not a single economics faculty in Europe is remotely competitive with a Chicago or a George Mason: Since 1990, only three of the 36 winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics were then affiliated with a European university.
Then there is the media. Last week, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, who leads the country's market-friendly Free Democrats, took to the pages of Die Welt to lament that Germany's working poor make less than welfare recipients. "For too long," he wrote, "we have perfected in Germany the redistribution [of wealth], forgetting where prosperity comes from."
For his banal observations, Mr. Westerwelle was roundly accused of "[defaming] millions of welfare recipients" and urged to apologize to them. It takes a remarkably stultified intellectual climate for an op-ed to spark this kind of brouhaha: It is the empire of the Emperor's New Clothes, adapted to the 21st century welfare state.
This is all the more remarkable given that Europe's economic travails aren't exactly difficult to grasp. Greece in a nutshell? It costs $10,218 to obtain all the permitting needed to start a new business there, according to Harvard economist Alberto Alesina. In the U.S., it takes $166. But tyrannies of thought are hard to break, especially when the beneficiaries of state largess—from college students to government workers to captains of subsidized industries—become a political majority. The U.S. may now be approaching just such a point itself.
Is there a way out? "I am deeply convinced," says Mr. Sorman, "that I belong to a continuous tradition of liberty against the state, with a fine pedigree: Montesquieu, Tocqueville, Jean Baptiste Say, Jacques Rueff, Raymond Aron, Jean-Francois Revel." Not an Anglo-Saxon name among them. Europe's recovery—and the recovery of Europe—will come only when they are no longer prophets without honor in their own lands.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
More Nuance Needed in Bank Regulations
More Nuance Needed in Bank Regulations. By Douglas J. Elliott
Brookings, January 22, 2010
January 22, 2010 — On the day President Barack Obama announced his new banking reform proposals, Reuters carried a story that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had privately expressed reservations about the plan. Having had time to digest it, I can see why.
One of the key parts of this plan is a proposal to limit banks' "proprietary investments." Traditionally, banks took in deposits and put the money to work by lending it out and also by holding a substantial amount of fairly safe financial investments that could be readily sold if cash was needed quickly. Over time, banks have substantially increased the level of investments they held primarily for their higher expected returns and managed them as proprietary investments. They also ramped up the extent to which they traded in and out of securities opportunistically. Banks have also created or invested in external hedge funds for similar purposes, as well as to earn fees from managing the hedge funds.
The argument for limiting proprietary investments is essentially that cheap depositor funds, and other federal support, should not support gambling in the markets. The administration also cited the potential for conflicts of interest when a bank is both working with customers and making its own investments.
But the plan to limit proprietary investments is problematic for a number of reasons. It is so vague that we may find that the eventual details are downright harmful to the economy. In addition, the proposal lacks the subtlety and balance that underlay the administration's earlier financial reform proposals. Previously Obama and his team struck a good balance between the need for regulation and the benefits of letting financial markets work to find the most efficient solutions on their own. Thursday's proposals forbid activities outright, rather than providing appropriate incentives, disincentives and protections.
There is a clear appeal to keeping banks from taking undue investment risks. On the surface, it would appear fairly clear-cut that they ought not to have major proprietary investment positions. However, the issue becomes far more complicated and less clear as one examines it in more detail.
First, it is hard to tell the difference between traditional investment activity, which is a necessary part of banking, and proprietary investments, which are purely discretionary. Banks need to hold significant investment positions as part of their liquidity management. It is in everyone's interest for the return on those investments to be maximized, within acceptable risk limits, since more profitable banks are stronger and less likely to need a taxpayer bailout. It is important not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Second, banks have long conducted trading activities to serve their clients in which it is often necessary to buy positions from sellers before the bank has an end-buyer. This brings trading risk, since the banks own the position for a time. It was a natural next step to allow the expert traders at the banks to take positions on a longer-term basis when they sensed that the market was moving in one direction. It is not always easy to distinguish these types of trades from ones motivated purely by customer demand.
Third, these investment activities should be unusually profitable for banks on average. They already have the traders and equipment in place, so the additional cost is low. Also, a great deal of information flows through the largest banks that can legitimately be shared. The insight gained from this provides a significant market advantage. Again, it is generally good public policy for banks to engage in profitable activities.
The key issue is to determine when the risk of proprietary investing exceeds the gain. The administration appears to have suddenly decided it is always too risky no matter what the circumstances.
I believe the situation is more nuanced; regulators ought to set limitations on proprietary investments and create capital requirements that are tough enough to hold the risk to the public to a very low level. Unfortunately, banking, like life, is not black and white.
Brookings, January 22, 2010
January 22, 2010 — On the day President Barack Obama announced his new banking reform proposals, Reuters carried a story that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner had privately expressed reservations about the plan. Having had time to digest it, I can see why.
One of the key parts of this plan is a proposal to limit banks' "proprietary investments." Traditionally, banks took in deposits and put the money to work by lending it out and also by holding a substantial amount of fairly safe financial investments that could be readily sold if cash was needed quickly. Over time, banks have substantially increased the level of investments they held primarily for their higher expected returns and managed them as proprietary investments. They also ramped up the extent to which they traded in and out of securities opportunistically. Banks have also created or invested in external hedge funds for similar purposes, as well as to earn fees from managing the hedge funds.
The argument for limiting proprietary investments is essentially that cheap depositor funds, and other federal support, should not support gambling in the markets. The administration also cited the potential for conflicts of interest when a bank is both working with customers and making its own investments.
But the plan to limit proprietary investments is problematic for a number of reasons. It is so vague that we may find that the eventual details are downright harmful to the economy. In addition, the proposal lacks the subtlety and balance that underlay the administration's earlier financial reform proposals. Previously Obama and his team struck a good balance between the need for regulation and the benefits of letting financial markets work to find the most efficient solutions on their own. Thursday's proposals forbid activities outright, rather than providing appropriate incentives, disincentives and protections.
There is a clear appeal to keeping banks from taking undue investment risks. On the surface, it would appear fairly clear-cut that they ought not to have major proprietary investment positions. However, the issue becomes far more complicated and less clear as one examines it in more detail.
First, it is hard to tell the difference between traditional investment activity, which is a necessary part of banking, and proprietary investments, which are purely discretionary. Banks need to hold significant investment positions as part of their liquidity management. It is in everyone's interest for the return on those investments to be maximized, within acceptable risk limits, since more profitable banks are stronger and less likely to need a taxpayer bailout. It is important not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Second, banks have long conducted trading activities to serve their clients in which it is often necessary to buy positions from sellers before the bank has an end-buyer. This brings trading risk, since the banks own the position for a time. It was a natural next step to allow the expert traders at the banks to take positions on a longer-term basis when they sensed that the market was moving in one direction. It is not always easy to distinguish these types of trades from ones motivated purely by customer demand.
Third, these investment activities should be unusually profitable for banks on average. They already have the traders and equipment in place, so the additional cost is low. Also, a great deal of information flows through the largest banks that can legitimately be shared. The insight gained from this provides a significant market advantage. Again, it is generally good public policy for banks to engage in profitable activities.
The key issue is to determine when the risk of proprietary investing exceeds the gain. The administration appears to have suddenly decided it is always too risky no matter what the circumstances.
I believe the situation is more nuanced; regulators ought to set limitations on proprietary investments and create capital requirements that are tough enough to hold the risk to the public to a very low level. Unfortunately, banking, like life, is not black and white.
Restricting Bank Activities
Restricting Bank Activities. By Douglas J. Elliott
Brookings, January 21, 2010
January 21, 2010 — President Obama has proposed various measures to restrict the size and scope of activity of the nation’s largest banks. These proposals are broadly in line with ideas being pushed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and were announced in conjunction with a meeting between Volcker and the president. The key proposals all appear to require legislation and therefore are likely to undergo modification as a result of negotiations in Congress.
As this brief paper will hopefully make clear, the issues being addressed are complicated. This is a classic example of the devil being in the details and many of those details are simply unavailable. My own initial reaction is concern that the administration may be over-reacting to the risks it is trying to address, but it may be that further refinement of the proposals will address my concerns.
The biggest news comes from the president’s proposals to restrict proprietary trading and investments at the banks. Traditionally, banks took in deposits and put the money to work by lending it out and also by holding a substantial amount of fairly safe financial investments. These investments were held primarily because they provided more liquidity than loans, since they could be readily sold if needed, unlike loans. Sometimes investments were held because they would provide an unusually high return, but this was less common. Over the last couple of decades banks have substantially increased the level of investments that they held primarily for their higher expected returns and have ramped up the extent to which they traded in and out of securities opportunistically. Most of this activity is now done in units devoted to such “proprietary trading” where the bank’s own funds are invested in search of excess returns. Banks have also created or invested in external hedge funds for similar purposes, sometimes linked to an ability to earn fees from external investors for managing the hedge fund.
Many of the losses incurred by banks in the recent crisis occurred in their proprietary investment and trading books, although banks certainly lost money in more traditional ways as well. (For example, the mid-sized and smaller banks that are currently failing because of imprudent commercial real estate loans generally made their mistakes in very traditional ways. Larger banks are also losing a great deal of money on parts of their traditional lending activities, such as residential mortgage loans.) Chairman Volcker and a number of other observers have called for a limitation on the ability of banks to benefit from federally insured deposits, and the traditional liquidity supports provided by the Fed, if they are also going to do a significant volume of proprietary investment. The argument essentially is that cheap depositor funds should not be used to gamble in the financial markets.
The president proposes to essentially eliminate proprietary investments and ownership of hedge funds by banks. In addition to the risk management concerns, the administration has also cited the potential for conflicts of interest when a bank is both working with customers and making its own investments.
There is a clear appeal to keeping banks that benefit from deposit insurance and other public support, including potential taxpayer rescues, from taking undue investment risks. On the surface, it would appear fairly clearcut that they ought not to have major proprietary trading positions. However, the issue becomes far more complicated and less clear as one examines it.
First, it is harder than one might think to tell the difference between traditional investment activity, which is a necessary part of banking, and proprietary investments which are purely discretionary. Banks need to hold significant investment positions as part of their liquidity management and it has also generally been considered reasonable to invest the capital supplied by the bank’s shareholders into financial instruments. It is in everyone’s interest for the return on those investments to be maximized, within acceptable risk levels, since more profitable banks are stronger and in a better position to serve their customers. Part of that profit maximization comes from allowing banks to trade in and out of their investment positions as their situation changes or as they see market opportunities or threats. Therefore, it is somewhat difficult to draw a bright line between “proprietary investments” and traditional liquidity management activities. It is also hard to distinguish between investment and trading, since a significant amount of transactional activity can make sense even in a book that is essentially held for liquidity management purposes.
Second, banks have long been allowed to conduct certain trading activities to serve their clients. This is a relatively low risk business to the extent that it consists of trying to match buyers and sellers while earning a small spread for acting as the intermediary. It is often necessary for banks to buy positions from sellers before they have an end-buyer on the other side, in order to provide good service. This brings trading risk, since it is possible that they are not able to find that end-buyer at the price that they themselves paid. The need for these trading activities led banks to employ large numbers of in-house traders who developed substantial expertise. It was a natural next step to allow them to take certain positions on a somewhat longer-term basis when they could sense that the market was going to be moving in one direction or the other. It would not always be easy to distinguish these types of trades from ones that have a purer customer-based motive. Nor is it clear that we would want banks to give up the potential profits from the insights they gain through their general market activities.
Third, there is reason to believe that trading and investment activities should be unusually profitable for banks on average. The infrastructure they use for proprietary investments is generally already in place due to the need to hold large investment portfolios and to serve customers, therefore the marginal cost of adding proprietary investment activity can be low. In addition, a great deal of information flows through the largest banks. Some of this must be held confidential and cannot be shared even within the firm, but much of it can legitimately be shared. The insight gained from these information flows adds up to a significant market advantage that should yield excess returns on average. Again, all else equal, it is good public policy for the banks to engage in profitable activities that will make them stronger.
The key issue, therefore, is to determine when the risk created by proprietary investing exceeds the gain from allowing banks to engage in a generally quite profitable activity. Some observers clearly believe that proprietary investment almost always creates too much risk to the public. It appears that the administration is coming out on that side after a long period in which it had not placed major emphasis on this issue. My own view is that the situation is more nuanced and that regulators ought to have the ability to set limitations on proprietary investment and to set capital requirements for these activities that are high enough to hold the risk to the public to a very low level. Capital requirements can be quite effective as a risk management tool. At the extreme, a 100% capital requirement would mean that all the investment funds could be lost and it would not eat into any of the capital being used to back the rest of the bank’s activities.
The president also proposed that bank regulators be given the power to limit the size of any bank if its scale appears to create undue risk to the financial system. In particular, he proposed that the limits on deposit market share that already exist be extended to include all liabilities. This appears to be consistent with powers already incorporated into the financial regulatory reform bill that passed the House last year, although the president’s emphasis may increase the chance of those provisions surviving Congressional negotiations and even perhaps the probability of those powers being exercised by regulators in practice. If these provisions are included in the final legislation, it will be important to see whether the wording of the law tips the scales towards or away from their actual use. For example, limitations could be negotiated that would narrow the conditions under which regulators could take such an action. Alternatively, the law could provide a presumption that any bank over a certain size would be too big. There would also be a myriad of technical details surrounding how size would be measured. Banks might, for example, be able to able to slim down by moving significant amounts of assets into related entities or securitizing them out to unrelated parties while retaining some stake.
I am concerned, as a general matter, about arbitrarily limiting the size of the banks, since our modern, complicated, global economy demands that the U.S. have at least a few banks capable of providing a very wide range of services each on a large enough scale to be efficient. However, there certainly may be circumstances in which regulators ought to push a bank or banks to be smaller in general or smaller in certain activities. The question is how to balance the considerations and avoid arbitrary limits or decisions.
Brookings, January 21, 2010
January 21, 2010 — President Obama has proposed various measures to restrict the size and scope of activity of the nation’s largest banks. These proposals are broadly in line with ideas being pushed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and were announced in conjunction with a meeting between Volcker and the president. The key proposals all appear to require legislation and therefore are likely to undergo modification as a result of negotiations in Congress.
As this brief paper will hopefully make clear, the issues being addressed are complicated. This is a classic example of the devil being in the details and many of those details are simply unavailable. My own initial reaction is concern that the administration may be over-reacting to the risks it is trying to address, but it may be that further refinement of the proposals will address my concerns.
The biggest news comes from the president’s proposals to restrict proprietary trading and investments at the banks. Traditionally, banks took in deposits and put the money to work by lending it out and also by holding a substantial amount of fairly safe financial investments. These investments were held primarily because they provided more liquidity than loans, since they could be readily sold if needed, unlike loans. Sometimes investments were held because they would provide an unusually high return, but this was less common. Over the last couple of decades banks have substantially increased the level of investments that they held primarily for their higher expected returns and have ramped up the extent to which they traded in and out of securities opportunistically. Most of this activity is now done in units devoted to such “proprietary trading” where the bank’s own funds are invested in search of excess returns. Banks have also created or invested in external hedge funds for similar purposes, sometimes linked to an ability to earn fees from external investors for managing the hedge fund.
Many of the losses incurred by banks in the recent crisis occurred in their proprietary investment and trading books, although banks certainly lost money in more traditional ways as well. (For example, the mid-sized and smaller banks that are currently failing because of imprudent commercial real estate loans generally made their mistakes in very traditional ways. Larger banks are also losing a great deal of money on parts of their traditional lending activities, such as residential mortgage loans.) Chairman Volcker and a number of other observers have called for a limitation on the ability of banks to benefit from federally insured deposits, and the traditional liquidity supports provided by the Fed, if they are also going to do a significant volume of proprietary investment. The argument essentially is that cheap depositor funds should not be used to gamble in the financial markets.
The president proposes to essentially eliminate proprietary investments and ownership of hedge funds by banks. In addition to the risk management concerns, the administration has also cited the potential for conflicts of interest when a bank is both working with customers and making its own investments.
There is a clear appeal to keeping banks that benefit from deposit insurance and other public support, including potential taxpayer rescues, from taking undue investment risks. On the surface, it would appear fairly clearcut that they ought not to have major proprietary trading positions. However, the issue becomes far more complicated and less clear as one examines it.
First, it is harder than one might think to tell the difference between traditional investment activity, which is a necessary part of banking, and proprietary investments which are purely discretionary. Banks need to hold significant investment positions as part of their liquidity management and it has also generally been considered reasonable to invest the capital supplied by the bank’s shareholders into financial instruments. It is in everyone’s interest for the return on those investments to be maximized, within acceptable risk levels, since more profitable banks are stronger and in a better position to serve their customers. Part of that profit maximization comes from allowing banks to trade in and out of their investment positions as their situation changes or as they see market opportunities or threats. Therefore, it is somewhat difficult to draw a bright line between “proprietary investments” and traditional liquidity management activities. It is also hard to distinguish between investment and trading, since a significant amount of transactional activity can make sense even in a book that is essentially held for liquidity management purposes.
Second, banks have long been allowed to conduct certain trading activities to serve their clients. This is a relatively low risk business to the extent that it consists of trying to match buyers and sellers while earning a small spread for acting as the intermediary. It is often necessary for banks to buy positions from sellers before they have an end-buyer on the other side, in order to provide good service. This brings trading risk, since it is possible that they are not able to find that end-buyer at the price that they themselves paid. The need for these trading activities led banks to employ large numbers of in-house traders who developed substantial expertise. It was a natural next step to allow them to take certain positions on a somewhat longer-term basis when they could sense that the market was going to be moving in one direction or the other. It would not always be easy to distinguish these types of trades from ones that have a purer customer-based motive. Nor is it clear that we would want banks to give up the potential profits from the insights they gain through their general market activities.
Third, there is reason to believe that trading and investment activities should be unusually profitable for banks on average. The infrastructure they use for proprietary investments is generally already in place due to the need to hold large investment portfolios and to serve customers, therefore the marginal cost of adding proprietary investment activity can be low. In addition, a great deal of information flows through the largest banks. Some of this must be held confidential and cannot be shared even within the firm, but much of it can legitimately be shared. The insight gained from these information flows adds up to a significant market advantage that should yield excess returns on average. Again, all else equal, it is good public policy for the banks to engage in profitable activities that will make them stronger.
The key issue, therefore, is to determine when the risk created by proprietary investing exceeds the gain from allowing banks to engage in a generally quite profitable activity. Some observers clearly believe that proprietary investment almost always creates too much risk to the public. It appears that the administration is coming out on that side after a long period in which it had not placed major emphasis on this issue. My own view is that the situation is more nuanced and that regulators ought to have the ability to set limitations on proprietary investment and to set capital requirements for these activities that are high enough to hold the risk to the public to a very low level. Capital requirements can be quite effective as a risk management tool. At the extreme, a 100% capital requirement would mean that all the investment funds could be lost and it would not eat into any of the capital being used to back the rest of the bank’s activities.
The president also proposed that bank regulators be given the power to limit the size of any bank if its scale appears to create undue risk to the financial system. In particular, he proposed that the limits on deposit market share that already exist be extended to include all liabilities. This appears to be consistent with powers already incorporated into the financial regulatory reform bill that passed the House last year, although the president’s emphasis may increase the chance of those provisions surviving Congressional negotiations and even perhaps the probability of those powers being exercised by regulators in practice. If these provisions are included in the final legislation, it will be important to see whether the wording of the law tips the scales towards or away from their actual use. For example, limitations could be negotiated that would narrow the conditions under which regulators could take such an action. Alternatively, the law could provide a presumption that any bank over a certain size would be too big. There would also be a myriad of technical details surrounding how size would be measured. Banks might, for example, be able to able to slim down by moving significant amounts of assets into related entities or securitizing them out to unrelated parties while retaining some stake.
I am concerned, as a general matter, about arbitrarily limiting the size of the banks, since our modern, complicated, global economy demands that the U.S. have at least a few banks capable of providing a very wide range of services each on a large enough scale to be efficient. However, there certainly may be circumstances in which regulators ought to push a bank or banks to be smaller in general or smaller in certain activities. The question is how to balance the considerations and avoid arbitrary limits or decisions.
How to Make a Weak Economy Worse - FDR's war against business showed that a president must choose between retribution and recovery
How to Make a Weak Economy Worse. By AMITY SHLAES
FDR's war against business showed that a president must choose between retribution and recovery.
WSJ, Feb 02, 2010
You get the feeling President Obama is girding for battle with the financial sector. In last week's State of the Union address, he promised to regulate the industry. On Jan. 21, he was blunter, warning that he would not let companies that enjoyed "soaring profits and obscene bonuses" block his financial reforms. "If these folks want a fight," he said, "it's a fight I'm ready to have."
This declaration of war echoes that of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In 1936, late in his campaign for a second presidential term, FDR spoke of the challenges of "business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking." Wall Streeters and businessmen hated him, he said, adding that "I welcome their hatred."
Then Roosevelt escalated: "I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it the forces of selfishness and the lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second administration that in it these forces met their master."
Mr. Obama might want to stick to a moderate approach. FDR's war against business played to the crowd, but it hurt the economy. While monetary policies impeded recovery in the late 1930s, it was the administration's assault on companies and capital that ensured the Depression's duration.
Roosevelt had initially opted for safety and picked relatively moderate advisers. His first Treasury Secretary, William Woodin, was a railroad executive. Roosevelt also kept over a Hoover-era official, Jesse Jones, at the TARP of the day, the Reconstruction Finance Corp. James Warburg, the son of Wall Street banker Paul Warburg, also joined the team.
In the crucial days before March 5, 1933, when FDR declared a "bank holiday" to halt the bank run, New Dealers worked with Republicans to resolve the financial crisis. When it came to reforming Wall Street, they were likewise measured. Yes, they created the Securities and Exchange Commission. But their regulation seemed designed to serve markets, not stamp them out. At least mostly.
Though there was nothing establishment about the centerpiece of the early New Deal, the National Recovery Administration, it was friendly to big business. Indeed, too much so. Under the NRA, the largest players in each industrial sector were judged too big to fail not because their failure would create systemic financial risk—the argument for banks today—but rather in the faith that firms of such scale could serve as engines of recovery.
And Roosevelt, like Presidents Obama and Bush, dumped billions in cash onto the country. There was, not surprisingly, a Roosevelt market rally, just as there has been an Obama rally.
But complete recovery proved elusive. The public spending programs had less effect than hoped. Smaller firms complained, accurately, that the NRA's minimum wages and limits on hours disadvantaged them. Unemployment was still high. FDR knew he could not keep asking Congress to authorize enormous outlays forever.
Frustrated, the president shifted to retribution. By 1935, FDR decided that firms, especially big firms, were impeding recovery. They must now redeem themselves and save the economy by sacrificing—or else.
The attacks started with taxes. In 1935, well before the "hatred" speech, FDR led Congress in passaging a law that replaced a flat rate on corporate income with a graduated rate—itself a penalty on larger firms. Personal income taxes went up, as did other rates. In 1936 FDR signed into law the undistributed profits tax, which aimed to force reluctant firms to disgorge cash as dividends or by paying higher wages. This levy too was graduated, with a top rate of 27%.
The 1935 Wagner Act was a tiger that makes today's union law look like a pussycat. It favored unions over companies in nearly every way, including institutionalizing the closed shop. And after Roosevelt's landslide victory in 1936, the closed shop and the sit-down strike stole thousands of productive workdays from companies, punishing earnings and limiting ability to hire.
Of particular relevance today was Roosevelt's switch on antitrust policy. The large companies once rewarded by the NRA now became targets.
The final front of the war was utilities, the country's most hopeful industry. FDR's 1935 law, the Public Utilities Holding Company Act, made it so difficult for private-sector firms in this industry to raise capital that it was called a death sentence.
The result of it all was the Depression within the Depression of 1937 and 1938, when industrial production plummeted and unemployment climbed back into the higher teens. Even John Maynard Keynes chided FDR for his attitude about businessmen: "It is a mistake to think they are more immoral than politicians."
Among themselves, the New Dealers acknowledged failure. FDR's second Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, eventually determined that the problem was lack of what he labeled "business confidence." Late in the decade, Morgenthau dared to call for tax cuts. He even placed a sign on his desk asking, "Does it contribute to recovery?" Roosevelt told him the sign was "very stupid."
Ultimately the war abroad required FDR to give up his war at home. Now the same industries that had been under prosecution were at the War Production Board, signing contracts. Scholars have argued that wartime spending ended the Depression. But the truce with business played an important role.
The 1930s story suggests not that any individual reform is wrong per se. It reminds us rather that frustrated presidents are inconsistent, that antibusiness policies are cumulative, and that hostility yields more damage than benefit. Presidents can choose between retribution and recovery. They cannot have both.
Miss Shlaes, a senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations, is author of "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression" (HarperCollins, 2007).
FDR's war against business showed that a president must choose between retribution and recovery.
WSJ, Feb 02, 2010
You get the feeling President Obama is girding for battle with the financial sector. In last week's State of the Union address, he promised to regulate the industry. On Jan. 21, he was blunter, warning that he would not let companies that enjoyed "soaring profits and obscene bonuses" block his financial reforms. "If these folks want a fight," he said, "it's a fight I'm ready to have."
This declaration of war echoes that of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In 1936, late in his campaign for a second presidential term, FDR spoke of the challenges of "business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking." Wall Streeters and businessmen hated him, he said, adding that "I welcome their hatred."
Then Roosevelt escalated: "I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it the forces of selfishness and the lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second administration that in it these forces met their master."
Mr. Obama might want to stick to a moderate approach. FDR's war against business played to the crowd, but it hurt the economy. While monetary policies impeded recovery in the late 1930s, it was the administration's assault on companies and capital that ensured the Depression's duration.
Roosevelt had initially opted for safety and picked relatively moderate advisers. His first Treasury Secretary, William Woodin, was a railroad executive. Roosevelt also kept over a Hoover-era official, Jesse Jones, at the TARP of the day, the Reconstruction Finance Corp. James Warburg, the son of Wall Street banker Paul Warburg, also joined the team.
In the crucial days before March 5, 1933, when FDR declared a "bank holiday" to halt the bank run, New Dealers worked with Republicans to resolve the financial crisis. When it came to reforming Wall Street, they were likewise measured. Yes, they created the Securities and Exchange Commission. But their regulation seemed designed to serve markets, not stamp them out. At least mostly.
Though there was nothing establishment about the centerpiece of the early New Deal, the National Recovery Administration, it was friendly to big business. Indeed, too much so. Under the NRA, the largest players in each industrial sector were judged too big to fail not because their failure would create systemic financial risk—the argument for banks today—but rather in the faith that firms of such scale could serve as engines of recovery.
And Roosevelt, like Presidents Obama and Bush, dumped billions in cash onto the country. There was, not surprisingly, a Roosevelt market rally, just as there has been an Obama rally.
But complete recovery proved elusive. The public spending programs had less effect than hoped. Smaller firms complained, accurately, that the NRA's minimum wages and limits on hours disadvantaged them. Unemployment was still high. FDR knew he could not keep asking Congress to authorize enormous outlays forever.
Frustrated, the president shifted to retribution. By 1935, FDR decided that firms, especially big firms, were impeding recovery. They must now redeem themselves and save the economy by sacrificing—or else.
The attacks started with taxes. In 1935, well before the "hatred" speech, FDR led Congress in passaging a law that replaced a flat rate on corporate income with a graduated rate—itself a penalty on larger firms. Personal income taxes went up, as did other rates. In 1936 FDR signed into law the undistributed profits tax, which aimed to force reluctant firms to disgorge cash as dividends or by paying higher wages. This levy too was graduated, with a top rate of 27%.
The 1935 Wagner Act was a tiger that makes today's union law look like a pussycat. It favored unions over companies in nearly every way, including institutionalizing the closed shop. And after Roosevelt's landslide victory in 1936, the closed shop and the sit-down strike stole thousands of productive workdays from companies, punishing earnings and limiting ability to hire.
Of particular relevance today was Roosevelt's switch on antitrust policy. The large companies once rewarded by the NRA now became targets.
The final front of the war was utilities, the country's most hopeful industry. FDR's 1935 law, the Public Utilities Holding Company Act, made it so difficult for private-sector firms in this industry to raise capital that it was called a death sentence.
The result of it all was the Depression within the Depression of 1937 and 1938, when industrial production plummeted and unemployment climbed back into the higher teens. Even John Maynard Keynes chided FDR for his attitude about businessmen: "It is a mistake to think they are more immoral than politicians."
Among themselves, the New Dealers acknowledged failure. FDR's second Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, eventually determined that the problem was lack of what he labeled "business confidence." Late in the decade, Morgenthau dared to call for tax cuts. He even placed a sign on his desk asking, "Does it contribute to recovery?" Roosevelt told him the sign was "very stupid."
Ultimately the war abroad required FDR to give up his war at home. Now the same industries that had been under prosecution were at the War Production Board, signing contracts. Scholars have argued that wartime spending ended the Depression. But the truce with business played an important role.
The 1930s story suggests not that any individual reform is wrong per se. It reminds us rather that frustrated presidents are inconsistent, that antibusiness policies are cumulative, and that hostility yields more damage than benefit. Presidents can choose between retribution and recovery. They cannot have both.
Miss Shlaes, a senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations, is author of "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression" (HarperCollins, 2007).
Monday, February 1, 2010
Study finds focus on abstinence in sex-ed classes can delay sexual activity
Study finds focus on abstinence in sex-ed classes can delay sexual activity
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 1, 2010; 4:35 PM
Sex education classes that focus on encouraging children to remain abstinent can convince a significant proportion to delay sexual activity, researchers reported Monday in a landmark study that could have major implications for the nation's embattled efforts to protect young people against unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.
In the first carefully designed study to evaluate the controversial approach to sex ed, researchers found that only about a third of 6th and 7th graders who went through sessions focused on abstinence started having sex in the next two years. In contrast, nearly half of students who got other classes, including those that included information about contraception, became sexually active.
"I think we've written off abstinence-only education without looking closely at the nature of the evidence," said John B. Jemmott III, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, who led the federally funded study. "Our study shows this could be one approach that could be used."
The research, published in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, comes amid intense debate over how to reduce sexual activity, pregnancies, births and sexually transmitted diseases among children and teenagers. After declining for more than a decade, births, pregnancies and STDs among U.S. teens have begun increasing again.
The Obama administration eliminated more than $150 million in federal funding targeted at abstinence programs, which are relatively new and have little rigorous evidence supporting their effectiveness. Instead it is launching a new $114 million pregnancy prevention initiative that will fund only programs that have been shown scientifically to work. The administration Monday proposed expanding that program to $183 million next year. The move came after intensifying questions about the effectiveness of abstinence programs.
"This new study is game-changing," said Sarah Brown, who leads the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. "For the first time, there is strong evidence that an abstinence-only intervention can help very young teens delay sex and reduce their recent sexual activity as well."
The new study is the first to evaluate an abstinence program using a carefully "controlled" design that compared it directly to alternative strategies -- considered the highest level of scientific evidence.
"This takes away the main pillar of opposition to abstinence education," said Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation who wrote the criteria for federal funding of abstinence programs. "I've always known that abstinence programs have gotten a bad rap."
Even long-time critics of the approach praised the new study, saying it provided strong evidence that such programs can work and may deserve taxpayer support.
"One of the things that's exciting about this study is that it says we have a new tool to add to our repertoire," said Monica Rodriguez, vice president for education and training at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States.
Based on the findings, Obama administration officials said programs like the one evaluated in the study could be eligible for federal funding.
"No one study determines funding decisions, but the findings from the research paper suggest that this kind of project could be competitive for grants if there's promise that it achieves the goal of teen pregnancy prevention," said Health and Human Services Department spokesman Nicholas Pappas.
Several critics of abstinence-only approach argued that the curriculum tested was not representative of most abstinence programs. It did not take on a moralistic tone as many abstinence programs do. Most notably, the sessions encouraged children to delay sex until they are ready, not necessarily until they were married, did not portray sex outside of marriage as never appropriate or disparage condoms.
"There is no data in this study to support the 'abstain-until marriage' programs, which research proved ineffective during the Bush administration," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth.
But abstinence supporters disputed that, saying that the new program was essentially the same as other good abstinence programs.
"For our critics to use 'marriage' as the thing that sets the program in this study apart from federally funded programs is an exaggeration and smacks of an effort to dismiss abstinence education rather than understanding what it is," Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association.
The new study involved 662 African-American students who were randomly assigned to go through one of five programs: An eight-hour curriculum that encouraged them to delay having sex; an eight-hour program focused on teaching safe sex; an eight- or 12-hour program that did both; or an eight-hour program focused on teaching the youngsters other ways to be healthy, such as eating well and exercising.
Over the next two years, about 33 percent of the students who went through the abstinence program started having sex, compared to about 52 percent who were just taught safe sex. About 42 percent of the students who went through the comprehensive program started having sex, and about 47 percent of those who just learned about other ways to be healthy. The abstinence program had no negative effects on condom use, which has been a major criticism of the abstinence approach.
"The take-home message is that we need a variety of interventions to address an epidemic like HIV, sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy," Jemmott said. "There are populations that really want an abstinence intervention. They are against telling children about condoms. This study suggests abstinence programs can be part of the mix of programs that we offer."
Head Start: A Tragic Waste of Money
Head Start: A Tragic Waste of Money. By Andrew J. Coulson
This article appeared in the New York Post on January 28, 2010.
Head Start, the most sacrosanct federal education program, doesn't work.
That's the finding of a sophisticated study just released by President Obama's Department of Health and Human Services.
Created in 1965, the comprehensive preschool program for 3- and 4-year olds and their parents is meant to narrow the education gap between low-income students and their middle- and upper-income peers. Forty-five years and $166 billion later, it has been proven a failure.
The bad news came in the study released this month: It found that, by the end of the first grade, children who attended Head Start are essentially indistinguishable from a control group of students who didn't.What's so damning is that this study used the best possible method to review the program: It looked at a nationally representative sample of 5,000 children who were randomly assigned to either the Head Start ("treatment") group or to the non-Head Start ("control") group.
Random assignment is the "gold standard" of medical and social-science research: It gives investigators confidence that the treatment and control groups are essentially identical in every respect except their access to Head Start. So if eventual test performances differ, we can be pretty sure that the difference was caused by the program. No previous study of Head Start used this approach on a nationally representative sample of children.
When the researchers gave both groups of students 44 different academic tests at the end of the first grade, only two seemed to show even marginally significant advantages for the Head Start group. And even those apparent advantages vanished after standard statistical controls were applied.
In fact, not a single one of the 114 tests administered to first graders — of academics, socio-emotional development, health care/health status and parenting practice — showed a reliable, statistically significant effect from participating in Head Start.
Some advocates of the program have acknowledged these dramatic results, but suggest that it's not necessarily Head Start's fault if its effects vanish during kindergarten and the first grade — perhaps our K-12 schools are to blame.
But that's beside the point. Even if it's true, it means that Head Start will be of no lasting value to children until we fix our elementary and secondary schools. Until then, money spent on Head Start will continue to be wasted.
Yet the Obama administration remains enthusiastic. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius and Education Secretary Arne Duncan both want to boost funding for Head Start — that is, to spend more on a program that's sure to fail. That's after the president already raised spending on the program from $6.8 billion to $9.2 billion last year.
Instead of throwing more dollars at this proven failure, President Obama might consider throwing his weight behind proven successes. A federal program that pays private-school tuition for poor DC families, for instance, has been shown to raise students' reading performance by more than two grade levels after just three years, compared to a control group of students who stayed in public schools. And it does so at about a quarter the cost to taxpayers of DC's public schools.
Sadly, Obama and Duncan have ignored the DC program's proven success. Neither lifted a finger to save it when Democrats in Congress pulled the plug on its funding last year.
Perhaps it's unrealistic to expect national Democrats to end a Great Society program, even when it's a proven failure. Perhaps it's unrealistic to expect them to stand up to teachers' union opposition and support private-school-choice programs that are proven successes.
Of course, until last week, it seemed unrealistic to expect a Republican to win the Senate seat long held by Ted Kennedy. If voters get angry enough with federal education politics, national Democrats may start learning from their state-level colleagues who are starting to support effective policies like school choice. Or they may just lose their seats, too.
Andrew J. Coulson directs the Cato Insti tute's Center for Educational Freedom.
Federal President Admits CBO Cost Estimates of ObamaCare Are Incomplete
Obama Admits CBO Cost Estimates of ObamaCare Are Incomplete
Yesterday — day #224 of the ObamaCare Cost-Estimate Watch — President Obama told House Republicans:
You can’t structure a bill where suddenly 30 million people have coverage and it costs nothing.
And just like that, the president admitted that the official Congressional Budget Office estimates of his health care plan do not reflect its full costs.
Both the House and Senate versions of ObamaCare would cover millions of uninsured Americans by requiring them to purchase private health insurance. As President Obama notes, even if you force people to spend their own money on health insurance, it still costs something to cover them. And if the government partly subsidizes those premiums, the remaining mandatory premium is still part of the cost of covering them.
Yet Democrats have systematically blocked the CBO from including those costs in its official cost projections. The Senate bill’s estimated price tag of $940 billion, for example, includes only the costs that bill would impose on the federal government. By my count, that’s only 40 percent of total costs. By Mr. Obama’s admission, that’s not the full cost of the bill.
Now that the President of the United States has acknowledged that the CBO’s cost estimates are incomplete, could we maybe get a complete cost estimate? Maybe just for the Senate bill?
Michael F. Cannon • January 30, 2010 @ 8:07 amSunday, January 31, 2010
The Runaway Subsidy Train
The Runaway Subsidy Train. By WENDELL COX
In some corridors, 'high-speed' rail won't be much faster than trains in the 1930s.
WSJ, Feb 01, 2010
On Thursday the Obama administration awarded $8 billion in stimulus funds to plan and build high-speed rail projects in California and Florida, and for other routine passenger-rail projects masquerading as high-speed rail. This is a political plum to the states that will receive the money.
It is also a dream come true for fans of bullet trains in Japan and Europe and the faster, greenhouse gas-belching Mag-Lev (magnetic levitation) lines. But this is not money well spent.
Supporters say high-speed rail is a cost-effective, "green" solution to airport and highway congestion. In reality, it is costly to build and operate and has a negligible impact on highway and airport traffic. High-speed rail is driven by little more than a romantic notion to confer a European ambiance on American cities.
Proponents also claim that high-speed rail is profitable, but this too is off the mark. Internationally, only two segments have ever broken even: Tokyo to Osaka and Paris to Lyon.
Ridership in these markets has been bolstered by high gasoline prices and one-way highway tolls of $40 and $100, respectively. These and other foreign routes have attracted much of their ridership from a strong core of rail passengers that does not exist in the U.S.
The administration is giving California $2.25 billion for trains that are expected to reach 220 miles per hour between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The cost of building this rail line is now estimated by the California High Speed Rail Authority to be more than $40 billion and could be $60 billion or more.
Even after adjusting for inflation, the projected cost of the system has increased by half over the original cost in the past decade. Ridership projections have also fluctuated wildly, from as low as 32 million annually to nearly 100 million; now the rail authority estimates the train will carry 41 million passengers each year.
High-speed rail does little to unsnarl traffic jams because most highway congestion is within urban areas, not between them. It also has negligible impact on airport congestion. The world's strongest high-speed rail market, Tokyo to Osaka, is also one of the world's largest airline markets. Even with high-speed rail, there is still frequent air-shuttle service between Paris and Marseille.
Environmental claims are misleading. Using California High Speed Rail Authority's data, Joe Vranich and I estimated that the California system would reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, at a cost of $2,000 per ton. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that we should be able to meet its greenhouse gas targets by spending $50 or less per ton.
The administration is planning on giving Florida $1.25 billion to build a Tampa to Orlando high-speed rail line. The train on that route is expected to hit speeds of 160 mph and to make a trip between the two cities in about 45 minutes.
This will be helpful if you happen to live in the Orlando Station and have business in the Tampa Station. But most travelers will be better off driving.
It's about 90 minutes by car, though it can be less depending on your home and destination. Once you factor in the time it would take to travel to the station, park, walk to the platform, and wait for the train to depart and also pick up a rental car on the other end, driving would probably be faster.
Other rail projects aren't much better. One project involves a line connecting Portland, Ore., and Seattle, Wash. The administration wants to spend $600 million on the line to shave about 10 minutes off of a three-and-a-half hour trip (which it would do by raising average speeds to 51 mph, from 49 mph).
***
In the other corridors where the administration plans to spend money—such as Charlotte to Raleigh and Chicago to St. Louis—projected train speeds won't be much faster than what the fastest trains in the 1930s were able to do. Some trains then topped 80 mph. As a result, car trips will normally be as fast door to door, and they will be far less costly than taking the train and then renting a car.
There is no need to subsidize intercity travel. Flyers pay for virtually all of the costs of running the airline system, including airports and air traffic control. Gasoline taxes and highway tolls built and maintain intercity roadways, and they also support mass transit with $10 billion in subsidies annually. Intercity buses require no taxpayer funds.
Only rail requires heavy subsidies. At the end of the day, the great danger is that true high-speed rail could cost taxpayers even more than the tens of billions in subsidies that have been paid to Amtrak since the 1970s.
Mr. Obama said in Tampa last week that we are "falling behind" other countries in high-speed rail. With a record budget deficit, it makes sense to fall behind in spending on high-speed rail that we don't need with money we don't have.
Mr. Cox is principal of Demographia, a consulting firm based in St. Louis. He served on the Amtrak Reform Council from 1999-2002 and is co-author with Joseph Vranich of the 2008 Reason Foundation study. "The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report."
In some corridors, 'high-speed' rail won't be much faster than trains in the 1930s.
WSJ, Feb 01, 2010
On Thursday the Obama administration awarded $8 billion in stimulus funds to plan and build high-speed rail projects in California and Florida, and for other routine passenger-rail projects masquerading as high-speed rail. This is a political plum to the states that will receive the money.
It is also a dream come true for fans of bullet trains in Japan and Europe and the faster, greenhouse gas-belching Mag-Lev (magnetic levitation) lines. But this is not money well spent.
Supporters say high-speed rail is a cost-effective, "green" solution to airport and highway congestion. In reality, it is costly to build and operate and has a negligible impact on highway and airport traffic. High-speed rail is driven by little more than a romantic notion to confer a European ambiance on American cities.
Proponents also claim that high-speed rail is profitable, but this too is off the mark. Internationally, only two segments have ever broken even: Tokyo to Osaka and Paris to Lyon.
Ridership in these markets has been bolstered by high gasoline prices and one-way highway tolls of $40 and $100, respectively. These and other foreign routes have attracted much of their ridership from a strong core of rail passengers that does not exist in the U.S.
The administration is giving California $2.25 billion for trains that are expected to reach 220 miles per hour between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The cost of building this rail line is now estimated by the California High Speed Rail Authority to be more than $40 billion and could be $60 billion or more.
Even after adjusting for inflation, the projected cost of the system has increased by half over the original cost in the past decade. Ridership projections have also fluctuated wildly, from as low as 32 million annually to nearly 100 million; now the rail authority estimates the train will carry 41 million passengers each year.
High-speed rail does little to unsnarl traffic jams because most highway congestion is within urban areas, not between them. It also has negligible impact on airport congestion. The world's strongest high-speed rail market, Tokyo to Osaka, is also one of the world's largest airline markets. Even with high-speed rail, there is still frequent air-shuttle service between Paris and Marseille.
Environmental claims are misleading. Using California High Speed Rail Authority's data, Joe Vranich and I estimated that the California system would reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, at a cost of $2,000 per ton. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that we should be able to meet its greenhouse gas targets by spending $50 or less per ton.
The administration is planning on giving Florida $1.25 billion to build a Tampa to Orlando high-speed rail line. The train on that route is expected to hit speeds of 160 mph and to make a trip between the two cities in about 45 minutes.
This will be helpful if you happen to live in the Orlando Station and have business in the Tampa Station. But most travelers will be better off driving.
It's about 90 minutes by car, though it can be less depending on your home and destination. Once you factor in the time it would take to travel to the station, park, walk to the platform, and wait for the train to depart and also pick up a rental car on the other end, driving would probably be faster.
Other rail projects aren't much better. One project involves a line connecting Portland, Ore., and Seattle, Wash. The administration wants to spend $600 million on the line to shave about 10 minutes off of a three-and-a-half hour trip (which it would do by raising average speeds to 51 mph, from 49 mph).
***
In the other corridors where the administration plans to spend money—such as Charlotte to Raleigh and Chicago to St. Louis—projected train speeds won't be much faster than what the fastest trains in the 1930s were able to do. Some trains then topped 80 mph. As a result, car trips will normally be as fast door to door, and they will be far less costly than taking the train and then renting a car.
There is no need to subsidize intercity travel. Flyers pay for virtually all of the costs of running the airline system, including airports and air traffic control. Gasoline taxes and highway tolls built and maintain intercity roadways, and they also support mass transit with $10 billion in subsidies annually. Intercity buses require no taxpayer funds.
Only rail requires heavy subsidies. At the end of the day, the great danger is that true high-speed rail could cost taxpayers even more than the tens of billions in subsidies that have been paid to Amtrak since the 1970s.
Mr. Obama said in Tampa last week that we are "falling behind" other countries in high-speed rail. With a record budget deficit, it makes sense to fall behind in spending on high-speed rail that we don't need with money we don't have.
Mr. Cox is principal of Demographia, a consulting firm based in St. Louis. He served on the Amtrak Reform Council from 1999-2002 and is co-author with Joseph Vranich of the 2008 Reason Foundation study. "The California High Speed Rail Proposal: A Due Diligence Report."
Friday, January 29, 2010
The president's anti-Wall Street rhetoric is not good for the economy, and may hurt his party politically
Bonfire of the Populists. By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
The president's anti-Wall Street rhetoric is not good for the economy, and may hurt his party politically.
WSJ, Jan 29, 2010
The problem with fires is that they can blow in any direction. Consider the White House, which is seeing a backdraft from the anti-Wall-Street flame it has been dousing with gasoline.
His agenda on the ropes, President Obama made a calculated decision to pivot to populism. The Massachusetts Senate race highlighted a fed-up public. The White House strategy: Channel that anger away from itself and to easier targets. Its opening shots were a new tax on banks, new restrictions on banking activities, and Mr. Obama roaring, "We want our money back!"
The president fed the fire with his State of the Union address. Americans are angry at "bad behavior on Wall Street." It is time to "slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas." Lobbyists are trying to "kill" financial regulation. American "cynicism" is the result of "selfish" bankers, CEOs who "reward" themselves "for failure" and lobbyists who "game the system." (No mention of Cornhusker Kickbacks or backroom union deals, but never mind.)
For an administration that claims to know its political history, the White House appears to have misread at least one decade. FDR was re-elected in 1936 for many reasons, but among them was his fiery denunciations of "economic royalists," "economic tyranny," and "economic slavery." Business knew it was in the president's crosshairs and put its capital on strike. The economy didn't recover until the war.
Team Obama is already witnessing a repeat. The U.S. economy ought to be flying out of recession. Yet bank lending is sluggish. Companies refuse to hire. Business is going elsewhere to raise capital: China last year outstripped the U.S. as a center for initial public offerings. The market gyrates on Washington's latest political drama.
A venture capitalist recently remarked to me that the uncertainty the administration has created is "nothing short of paralyzing." Nobody will invest in an industry that might be the next to be overtaxed, overregulated, or publicly disemboweled.
Add to that uncertainty the administration's new populist bent, and it's a recipe for a continued capital freeze. "People in the economy are thinking about whether to invest or take risks when what they are seeing are early signs of Hugo Chávez economics," says Wisconsin GOP Rep. Paul Ryan. With the White House's political fortunes fundamentally tied to economic recovery, this populist fire is an act of self-immolation.
The blowback is already hobbling the White House's own economic team. Senate Democrats, following presidential example, have been newly eager to skewer their own "symbol" of Wall Street. The nearest to hand happened to be Mr. Obama's own Fed chief, Ben Bernanke. Majority Leader Harry Reid spent two weeks putting down a reconfirmation revolt, helping save Mr. Obama from his own antibank rhetoric.
In the House, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was meanwhile called to answer questions about AIG disclosure and counterparties. He left accused by Democrat Edolphus Towns of aiding Wall Street banks in "looting the corpse" of the insurer. Talk about a populist liability. The two men survive only as damaged goods, more susceptible to congressional pressure, less able to make tough decisions. And should Mr. Obama cut Mr. Geithner loose, the White House's tough talk narrows the pool of experienced hands it can nominate as replacements.
Policy-wise, too, the administration is boxing itself in. In keeping with the populist swerve, a feisty Mr. Obama this week upped the ante on financial regulation, warning Congress he'd veto anything less than "real reform." Yet it is precisely a stick-it-to-them bill that will have the most trouble passing a frayed Congress in an election year. And heaven help the administration if there is another financial meltdown, one that truly poses systemic risk. Could this White House dare write another bailout check to "Wall Street"?
And for what? The administration made the mistake of leaking that its new strategy was pure politics, designed to re-energize the public and put Republicans on defense. That somewhat robbed it of its authenticity. Americans have also watched this White House prop up moribund auto makers, float Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and cut deals with pharmaceutical companies. The bank war appears a bit disingenuous. The country's growing investor class is not impressed by the sort of business mau-mauing that pummels their 401(k)s.
As for those Republicans, they are hardly cowering in fear. They watched Scott Brown bat away the president's bank tax, explaining it would be passed on to consumers and hurt lending. His victory suggested the public is open to free-market explanations, and the GOP is feeling more emboldened to make them.
Not all populism is bad. There is indeed an anti-establishment anger in the nation. But the majority of it is directed at a Washington that is foisting an unpopular agenda on the country, and at the cavalier treatment of the free market that creates jobs. The president might try tapping into that.
The president's anti-Wall Street rhetoric is not good for the economy, and may hurt his party politically.
WSJ, Jan 29, 2010
The problem with fires is that they can blow in any direction. Consider the White House, which is seeing a backdraft from the anti-Wall-Street flame it has been dousing with gasoline.
His agenda on the ropes, President Obama made a calculated decision to pivot to populism. The Massachusetts Senate race highlighted a fed-up public. The White House strategy: Channel that anger away from itself and to easier targets. Its opening shots were a new tax on banks, new restrictions on banking activities, and Mr. Obama roaring, "We want our money back!"
The president fed the fire with his State of the Union address. Americans are angry at "bad behavior on Wall Street." It is time to "slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas." Lobbyists are trying to "kill" financial regulation. American "cynicism" is the result of "selfish" bankers, CEOs who "reward" themselves "for failure" and lobbyists who "game the system." (No mention of Cornhusker Kickbacks or backroom union deals, but never mind.)
For an administration that claims to know its political history, the White House appears to have misread at least one decade. FDR was re-elected in 1936 for many reasons, but among them was his fiery denunciations of "economic royalists," "economic tyranny," and "economic slavery." Business knew it was in the president's crosshairs and put its capital on strike. The economy didn't recover until the war.
Team Obama is already witnessing a repeat. The U.S. economy ought to be flying out of recession. Yet bank lending is sluggish. Companies refuse to hire. Business is going elsewhere to raise capital: China last year outstripped the U.S. as a center for initial public offerings. The market gyrates on Washington's latest political drama.
A venture capitalist recently remarked to me that the uncertainty the administration has created is "nothing short of paralyzing." Nobody will invest in an industry that might be the next to be overtaxed, overregulated, or publicly disemboweled.
Add to that uncertainty the administration's new populist bent, and it's a recipe for a continued capital freeze. "People in the economy are thinking about whether to invest or take risks when what they are seeing are early signs of Hugo Chávez economics," says Wisconsin GOP Rep. Paul Ryan. With the White House's political fortunes fundamentally tied to economic recovery, this populist fire is an act of self-immolation.
The blowback is already hobbling the White House's own economic team. Senate Democrats, following presidential example, have been newly eager to skewer their own "symbol" of Wall Street. The nearest to hand happened to be Mr. Obama's own Fed chief, Ben Bernanke. Majority Leader Harry Reid spent two weeks putting down a reconfirmation revolt, helping save Mr. Obama from his own antibank rhetoric.
In the House, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was meanwhile called to answer questions about AIG disclosure and counterparties. He left accused by Democrat Edolphus Towns of aiding Wall Street banks in "looting the corpse" of the insurer. Talk about a populist liability. The two men survive only as damaged goods, more susceptible to congressional pressure, less able to make tough decisions. And should Mr. Obama cut Mr. Geithner loose, the White House's tough talk narrows the pool of experienced hands it can nominate as replacements.
Policy-wise, too, the administration is boxing itself in. In keeping with the populist swerve, a feisty Mr. Obama this week upped the ante on financial regulation, warning Congress he'd veto anything less than "real reform." Yet it is precisely a stick-it-to-them bill that will have the most trouble passing a frayed Congress in an election year. And heaven help the administration if there is another financial meltdown, one that truly poses systemic risk. Could this White House dare write another bailout check to "Wall Street"?
And for what? The administration made the mistake of leaking that its new strategy was pure politics, designed to re-energize the public and put Republicans on defense. That somewhat robbed it of its authenticity. Americans have also watched this White House prop up moribund auto makers, float Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and cut deals with pharmaceutical companies. The bank war appears a bit disingenuous. The country's growing investor class is not impressed by the sort of business mau-mauing that pummels their 401(k)s.
As for those Republicans, they are hardly cowering in fear. They watched Scott Brown bat away the president's bank tax, explaining it would be passed on to consumers and hurt lending. His victory suggested the public is open to free-market explanations, and the GOP is feeling more emboldened to make them.
Not all populism is bad. There is indeed an anti-establishment anger in the nation. But the majority of it is directed at a Washington that is foisting an unpopular agenda on the country, and at the cavalier treatment of the free market that creates jobs. The president might try tapping into that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
