Basement Medical Marijuana Growers are Depressing the Street Value of Illegal Marijuana

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 15th, 2013

Week in Review

A common perception is that Canada cares more for her people than America cares for her people.  The Americans put profits before people.  While the Canadians put people before profits.  Which is why Canada has legalized medical marijuana while only a few states in America have.  Because it was something sick Canadians needed.  So because Canada cares for her people (unlike the United States) they made the enlightened decision to legalize medical marijuana.  And it’s worked out swimmingly (see Medical marijuana lets B.C. growers earn thousands on streets posted 6/14/2013 on CBC News).

A B.C. pot grower [Jack] says he and many others are making thousands of dollars every month growing licensed medical marijuana and selling it for illegal distribution on the streets, and there is little police can do to stop it…

Jack says he used to grow his pot illegally and sell it on the Prairies, but that was too risky, so he applied to Health Canada for a Personal Use Production licence.

He filled out a few forms and got a doctor to sign off on a medical condition. The whole process took a half hour he recalls…

But while he’s growing the pot legally, Jack still sells his marijuana to the same middle men he always has and that’s how large amounts of medicinal marijuana end up being sold illegally on the streets, police say…

“Serious organized crime has found a venue that buffers them from law enforcement. They are actively recruiting people to make applications for marijuana licences…

Meanwhile back in his basement, Jack says he actually misses the days when operations like his were illegal because lately so much so-called “legal weed” has spilled onto the street it’s driven down prices.

He used to get almost $3,000 a pound for his bud when he was growing illegally. Now it’s $1,700 pound and falling. Sometimes there’s so much medical marijuana out there he says some growers can’t unload their product.

“It’s going down the tubes because of all these licences. Three years ago you couldn’t have enough of this. Now I know people who have ten pounds from their last crop because they couldn’t sell it. ”

And so Jack pines for the good old days – when what he did was illegal but he made a lot more money doing it.

Imagine that.  Drug dealers lied to their government.  So they could grow marijuana legally in their basement.  So they could sell it illegally on the street.  Even organized crime has taken to recruiting people to become home-growers to feed their criminal networks.  Bet the Canadians didn’t see that coming.

Note the economic lesson here.  Illegal substances are typically low in supply.  Because people can get arrested for supplying them.  Because few people want to risk getting arrested this low supply creates a high demand.  As there are more drug users than the current growers and traffickers of marijuana can supply.  Which would normally bring more suppliers into the marijuana economy.  But not when it’s illegal.  But make it legal and look what happens.  There is an explosion in supply.  Great for the drug user as prices fall.  But bad for the drug dealer as their drugs are worth less and bring in les revenue.

This is what happened during the Roaring Twenties in the United States.  As European farmers left the farm to fight in World War I American farmers stepped in to meet that unfilled demand.  And mechanized their farms to increase their output.  To cash in on that high demand.  But after the war soldiers became farmers again.  And those export markets for American farmers disappeared.  Just as their farms were never producing more with less thanks to their costly mechanization.  As crop prices fell it was good for hungry people as it prevented famine.  But it was bad for farmers.  Who couldn’t service their debt for all of that mechanization they financed.  And began to default en masse.  Causing bank failures in farming communities.  That spread to city banks.  Leading to the great bank runs of the Great Depression.

Interesting what growing pot can teach you.


Tags: , , , , , , ,

Thales of Miletus, Olive Oil, Tulip Mania of 1636 and the Chicago Board Options Exchange

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 30th, 2013

History 101

Thales of Miletus was able to Predict a Bumper Crop of Olives

Italian restaurants will have a bottle of olive oil on the table.  The more authentic restaurants.  That give you a taste of old Italy.  Where they give you bread to munch on while you wait for your food.  We pour a little olive oil on a plate.  And dip our bread in it.  And enjoy that Mediterranean flavor.  Something that some of us may believe the Olive Garden brought to the dining experience.  But olive oil actually predates the Olive Garden.  We probably started eating olives for the first time around the 8th millennium BC.  When our Neolithic ancestors were still using stone tools.  Someplace in ancient Greece.

Olive trees grew all around the Mediterranean Sea.  And the Mediterranean people probably started using olive oil around the 4th millennium BC.   That’s 4000 BC.  Awhile ago.  We began to produce olive oil commercially somewhere around 2500 BC.  And began trading this luxury good.  We ate it.  Used it in religious rituals.  In medicines.  And fuel for oil lamps.  Among other uses.  As demand grew we planted more trees.  And brought in large harvests at the end of the growing season.  And took the olives to the olive presses.  And waited for our turn.  To pay the pressman to press our olives into oil.  And during a good growing season you could find yourself waiting quite awhile.

But who has time to wait?  If only we could figure out some way to avoid that long line.  Well, as it turned out, if you were smart you could.  As Thales of Miletus did.  A Greek astronomer, philosopher and mathematician.  As well as a pretty good weather forecaster.  For he was able to predict a bumper crop of olives one year because of favorable weather.  Which would make those olive presses busy at the harvest.  So he went to the olive press owners and reserved time on their presses for a nominal down payment.  So when the harvest came in he would be at the front of the line.  If he was wrong about his forecast he would give up his nominal deposit.  And walk away.  As the press owners didn’t care whose olives they were pressing they were glad to take his money for this right to buy press time later.  They had nothing to lose.  And when Thales prediction proved true and there was a bumper crop of olives those options to buy time on those presses became very valuable.  Those anxious to get their olives into the presses were glad to pay him for those options.  To buy his right to be first to buy press time.  Which he did.  Getting quite wealthy in the process.  As well as proving a point.  Rational thinking had real value.  They could use philosophy to make life better.

As Tulip Prices continued their Meteoric Rise the Speculators entered the Market to Get Rich Quick

And the option was born.  You can use them to speculate about the price of something in the future to make a lot of money.  And you can use them for hedging risk.  Such as farmers do.  They enter contracts with people to sell their crops at a set price.  Which protects the farmer if there is a bumper crop and prices fall.  Those who didn’t enter an options contract will only get the market price for their crops.  And have an unprofitable season.  While those with options contracts will be able to sell their crops above the market price.  And have a profitable season.  But if there are droughts that reduce the harvest prices will rise.  Which protects the buyer.  As he is able to buy below the market price.  At the price in the options contract.  While those buyers without options contracts will have to pay the higher market price.  Thus entering a contract hedges risk for both buyer and seller.  One party may do better than the other if there is a large swing in price.  But neither party will suffer a bad loss.  So whatever happens in that growing season they will be around for the following growing season.  But the speculators, on the other hand, can suffer great losses.

Tulips were big in the 17th century.  The affluent adorned their homes with these beautiful flowers.  And they soon became a sign of affluence.  Today people go to the affluent shops on Rodeo Drive and buy the latest in high fashion to show off their wealth.  In the 17th century they planted tulips.  People were impressed with what they saw.  And soon had to have these wonderful flowers themselves.  Causing a great surge in demand for tulips.  Which tulip growers rushed in to meet.  But the supply couldn’t keep up with the demand.  So tulip prices soared.  Soon, growers (sellers) and wholesalers (buyers) start entering options contracts to hedge their risks in the volatile tulip market.  As tulip prices continued their meteoric rise the speculators entered the market to get rich quick.  This speculation grew into such a frenzy that people would even mortgage their homes to raise money to buy tulip options.  Waiting for the big payday when they could exercise those options.  And buy tulips at one price.  Then resell them at a higher price.  A much higher price.  The demand for options grew so great that an options market opened.  And people bought and sold tulip options.

All good things must come to an end, though.  As must speculative bubbles.  And that happened in the Netherlands in 1637.  For there comes a time where buyers simply refuse to buy anymore tulips at those high prices.  And when they stopped buying people with vast amounts of tulips to sell began to panic.  And started lowering their price.  As other sellers started doing.  When interest in buying tulips fell supply began to exceed demand.  Sending the tulip price into a freefall.  With falling tulip prices no one was buying options contracts.  Because the market price was falling so fast that it would fall below the price in those options contracts.  And when they did ‘fall out of the money’ those options contracts became worthless.  And all that money the speculators poured into the options market was lost.  People lost everything.  Even their homes.  Sending the Dutch economy into a nasty recession.

With the Advent of the Internet it’s Never been Easier to Buy and Sell Options

Stock options were a way to get rich quick.  And what made them so attractive to speculators was leverage.  A small investment could turn into great riches.  But that leverage worked both ways.  And it could take that small investment and turn it into a great loss.  Should the price move in the wrong direction and fall when you have a contract obligating you to buy at a higher price.  And with the tulip mania of 1636 investors were getting a little gun-shy of options in general.  Causing the volume of options trading to fall in London.  Concerned of the speculative nature of options London made options trading illegal in 1733.  A ban that remained until 1860.

Russell Sage inaugurated options trading in the United States in 1872.  These were over the counter (OTC).  There was no central stock exchange.  Or standardized options format.  Which made the trading difficult to say the least.  Brokers placed ads in financial journals for their respective buyers and sellers.  And waited.  For someone to read the ad.  And call.  Then haggled over the price a bit.  Signed a contract.  And then waited until the expiration date of the option.  Or placed another ad in some financial journal.  To find someone else to buy the option.

Then things started changing in 1935.  The SEC granted a license to the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) as a national securities exchange.  And in 1968, CBOT finally did something with that license.  They created the Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE).  Which standardized and organized options trading.  One Nobel Prize later to Fischer Black and Myron Scholes for their “The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities” we had a ‘scientific’ way for valuing stock options.  And with the advent of the Internet it’s never been easier to buy and sell options.  Allowing some to hedge risks easily.  While others live dangerously.  And speculate.  Trying to score big.  Before they lose everything trying to get rich quick.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Used Cars put a Crimp in Venezuela’s Inflationary Policies

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 27th, 2013

Week in Review

The American Left attacks capitalism for being unfair and evil because it puts profits before people.  Whereas socialism puts people before profits.  Where people give according to ability and take according to need.  Fair, yes?  In the way it makes people want to link arms and sing Kumbaya.  Because everyone has everything they need.  Thanks to that redistribution of wealth.  And exactly how does that work?  Something like this.

An unemployed man with 8 children will get more from the government than a single woman with no children working 12-hour days 6 days a week.  She will have a lot of income the state can tax.  So she has a lot of ability.  While he will get a lot of state benefits.  Because he has a lot of need.  A smart person will look at this and quickly come to the understanding that working hard sucks.  While being a lay-about means you live comfortably on state benefits.  Paid for by people like that woman working 12-hour days 6 days a week.  So in true socialism it’s a contest to show as little ability and as much need as possible.

Sometimes there aren’t enough people to tax.  So to keep the people happy the state spends money it doesn’t have.  By printing more and more money.  Which is what Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela.  Actions which the American Left applaud.  As they applaud Hugo Chavez for putting people before profits.  For unabashedly embracing socialism.  And condemning capitalism.  So Venezuela should be a socialist utopia.  So is it?  Let’s take a look (see Venezuela Ready to Crack Down on Clunker Car Inflation Refuge by Corina Pons & Nathan Crooks posted 1/24/2013 on Bloomberg).

Automobiles purchased in Venezuela, South America’s largest oil exporter, typically gain in value the moment they are driven off the dealership lot. Facing 20.1 percent inflation and capital controls introduced in 2003 that limit the amount of bolivars citizens may take out of the country, Venezuelans invest in durable goods…

Venezuela’s consumer prices last month rose 3.5 percent, the fastest pace in 32 months, the central bank said Jan. 11. Venezuela has the third-highest inflation rate worldwide.

Chavez in 2012 ordered companies to cut prices of shampoo, soap and other personal care products to contain inflationary pressures…

Inflation rose after Chavez restricted dollar supplies in a bid to close a fiscal gap widened by spending before elections in October, in which he defeated challenger Henrique Capriles Radonski by more than 10 percentage points.

The lack of dollars has created shortages of goods that range from toilet paper to detergent and extend to automobiles. Suvinca, a Venezuelan state distributor of Chinese-made cars, posted a notice on its website yesterday that said it had run out of cars and suspended sales…

“The law won’t solve the problem, because it doesn’t resolve the fact that there is still little supply. It won’t reduce demand, either,” Garcia said. “A black market will be created very fast. Instead of solving the problem, it will make it worse…”

“With this law, it will not be permissible to sell a car above the maximum suggested price, and a used car can never cost more than a new one,” Amoroso said. “Notaries will be prohibited from legalizing any transaction that is above the suggested price.”

When you print a lot of money it just makes your money worthless.  Which is why governments frown on people using their computer printers to make money.  If everyone did this money would lose its value.  For it would be as common place as leaves on the ground in autumn.  In countries with high inflation rates people want to spend their money as fast as they get it before it loses too much of its purchasing power.  For the real goods they buy will hold their value.  So it’s a safer place to put your savings.  Instead of in a bank.

The more bolivars (the Venezuelan currency) they print the less each bolivar is worth.  The more they depreciate the bolivar the faster people want to convert them into something that will hold its value.  Like cars.  If the bolivar loses half of its value it will take twice as many of them to buy a car.  So if you own a car its value in bolivars will soar the more of them they print.  Not that people want bolivars.  But they do want dollars.  And getting dollars by selling real goods avoids the inflation problem of the bolivar.  But it also helps to undermine the currency as no one wants to use it.  Or accept it in exchange for valuable goods.

Of course an easy solution to this problem is simply implementing price controls.  If you legally prevent prices from rising in response to runaway inflation problem solved, yes?  No.  Because if prices are held at artificially low levels people will buy so many of these items while the buying is good that these things will disappear from store shelves.  And if the store shelves are empty it doesn’t matter what prices are.  This is why there were gas lines in the Seventies.  Gas sales were so strong that gas stations ran out of gas.  And with prices below real market prices there wasn’t new supply coming on market to meet that excessive demand.  Because having to sell below your costs doesn’t encourage anyone to sell.  Except on the black market.  Where black market prices adjust market supply to market demand.  And everything is available for a price.

This is the socialist utopia that is Venezuela.  Only it’s not a utopia.  It just converts as many people with ability into people with need.  And when there are no longer enough people to tax to provide for those in need societies break down.  And governments collapse.  Unless you have a strong police state.  Which has been the hallmark of all social utopias that put people before profits.  Places like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China, North Korea, the communist countries of Eastern Europe, Cuba, etc.  Venezuela, too.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Big Government in Europe is worried about Glencore cornering the Zinc Market

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 24th, 2012

Week in Review

With the price of natural gas falling some providers are capping their wells until prices go up.  During the Eighties the price of oil soared, pulling oil producers into the oil business left and right.  Resulting with the oil glut of the Eighties as supply greatly outpaced demand.  OPEC tried to set the price of oil by limiting production.  But they sometimes fail as member states often cheat, selling a little more than their quota to profit from those high prices.  In America, when John D. Rockefeller was selling refined oil products cheaper than any of his competitors it was his competitors who urged the government to bring antitrust actions against him.  Not the people buying his products at low prices.  President Obama has shut down most drilling on federal lands.  But because of demand drilling on private lands is soaring.

Trying to maintain monopoly control is difficult.  And rarely can be done without the help of government (even with the help of government it’s not that easy).  Or by selling at a price below your competition.  Which rarely hurts consumers.  No, low prices hurt those who can’t sell at low prices.  Those who want consumers to pay their higher prices.  This is the power of market forces.  And greed.  For when prices go up greed lures others into the market place to cash in on those high prices.  Which brings prices down.  Supply and demand.  It’s how we have pretty much whatever we want in a complex economy.  Even just the right amount of zinc (see EU steelmakers unhappy with EU conditions on Glenstrata deal by Silvia Antonioli posted 11/22/2012 on Reuters).

EU steelmakers said Europe’s antitrust conditions for Glencore (GLEN.L) to go ahead with its $33 billion takeover of Xstrata (XTA.L) are not sufficient to prevent the dominant influence of one zinc supplier…

“The European steel industry, which uses the lion’s share of zinc metal traded in Europe, will still have to face a leading provider effectively controlling the zinc supply chain from mining to warehousing operations,” Eurofer said in a statement.

Post-merger, the parties will still have a share of around 35 per cent of the European zinc market and the vertical integration of the new entity, which includes mining, smelting, trading, logistics and warehousing, is also concerning according to Eurofer.

What’s really of concern here?  Economies of scale.  The bigger Glencore gets the lower its production costs per unit become.  And the lower their selling price can be.   This is what economies of scales get you.  Not monopoly power.  And who is hurt by lower selling prices?  Glencore’s competition.  And those supplying the other 65% of the European zinc market.

Of course, the argument always goes once someone corners the market (by driving their competition out of business with low prices) they’ll then start raising their prices.  A lot.  Oh my.  Imagine what would happen if zinc prices soared.  It would pull zinc suppliers into the European zinc market left and right to cash in on those high prices.  Can anyone name a supplier who cornered the market with low prices and now is selling at high prices that isn’t propped up by the government?

No.  Because it doesn’t happen.  Because it can’t happen.  Not with free markets.  Because of greed.  For if prices go up more people enter the market out of greed.  And the greater this greed the greater the supply brought onto market.  And the greater prices fall.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Economic Stimulus

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 5th, 2012

Economics 101

Prices match Supply to Demand letting Suppliers know when to bring more Goods and Services to Market

There is a natural ebb and flow to the economy.  Through good times and bad.  And you can tell which way the economy is heading by prices in the market place.  When prices are rising times are typically good.  As people are gainfully employed with money to spend.  As they compete with each other for the goods and services in the market place demand rises.  Growing greater than the supply of goods and services.  So prices rise.  Because when there are fewer goods and services they are worth more money.  For those who have them to sell.  Because demand is so great people are willing to pay top dollar for them.  To get them while supplies last.  This attracts the attention of other suppliers.  Who want to cash in on those high prices.  So they bring more goods and services to market.

In time supply catches up to demand.  And passes it.  Suddenly the market has more goods and services than people are buying.  As inventories grow retailers stop buying so much from their wholesale suppliers.  Who in turn stop buying so much from their manufacturers.  Who in turn stop buying so much from their raw material suppliers.  And manufacturers and their raw material suppliers begin laying off workers.  So there are fewer people gainfully employed with money to spend.  The fewer gainfully employed buy less than the more gainfully employed.  Causing inventories to grow larger as more goods are going into them than are coming out of them.  So they start cutting prices.  To unload these inventories before people start buying even less.  Because they spent a lot of money to build those inventories.  And it costs to hold these items in warehouses and stockrooms.

And that’s the natural ebb and flow of the economy.  What economists call the business cycle.  That goes from an expanding economy to a contracting economy.  From boom to bust.  From inflation to recession.  Something normal.  And natural.  Though it could be unpleasant for those who lose their jobs.  But it’s something that must happen.  To correct prices.  You see, prices make all of this work automatically.  They match supply to demand.  Letting suppliers know when to bring more goods and services to market.  And when they’ve brought too much.  When the economy goes into recession prices fall.  Which tells suppliers that supply exceeds demand.  And that anything additional they bring to market will not sell.  As they incur costs to bring things to market this is very good information to have.  So they don’t waste money.  Leaving their businesses short of cash.  Possibly causing their businesses to fail.

Whenever we Devalue the Dollar with Inflationary Monetary Policy Prices Rise

No one likes losing their job.  Because they need income to pay their bills.  And the government doesn’t like people losing their jobs.  Because they tax those incomes to pay the government’s bills.  And unemployed people pay no income taxes.  So the government tries to tweak the economy.  At the federal level.  To extend the inflationary periods of the business cycle.  And they do that with inflationary monetary policy.  Using their monetary powers to keep interest rates below the true market interest rate.  Hoping it will encourage suppliers and consumers to keep borrowing and spending money.  Even though supply had already caught up to and passed demand.  Such that everyone that wanted to buy something could.  While every supplier that wanted to sell something couldn’t.

Some people take advantage of these lower interest rates.  Some people will remortgage their homes to lower their monthly payment.  Which will give them a little more disposable cash each month.  Which they may use to buy more stuff.  But other people will take this opportunity to buy a large house just because of the low interest rate.  As some businesses may borrow to expand their business just because of the low interest rate.  Not for unmet demand.  These actions may not help the economy.  In fact they may hurt the economy in the long-term.  When the inevitable recession comes along and they are so overextended they may not be able to pay their bills.  They may lose their house.  Or their business.  For the worst thing to have whenever you suffer a reduction in revenue or income is debt.

But there is an even worse effect of that inflationary monetary policy.  When you increase the money supply you increase the total amount of dollars in the economy.  But they’re chasing the same amount of goods and services.  Which makes each dollar worth less.  Requiring more of them to buy the same things they once did.  Which is why whenever we devalue the dollar with inflationary monetary policy prices rise.  So, yes, there may be an initial expansion of economic activity.  But some people will have inflationary expectations.  That is, they know prices will go up in the very near future.  So they won’t increase production.  Why?  While an initial burst of economic activity may draw down those bloated inventories those coming higher prices will increase business costs.  Which businesses will have to pass on in the prices of their goods.  And how do higher prices affect consumers?  They buy less.  So manufacturers are not going to expand production when price inflation is going to reduce their sales in the long run.

Cutting Taxes and Reducing Costly Regulations have Stimulated Economic Activity every time they’ve been Tried

Perhaps the worst effect of inflation is the false information those higher prices give.  When consumer demand rises so do prices.  And it’s a signal to suppliers to bring more goods and services to market.  But when prices rise because of a depreciated dollar and NOT due to higher consumer demand, some may bring more goods and services to market when there is no demand for it.  So you have rising prices.  And expanding production.  Producing more goods than the market is demanding.  Creating a bubble.  Adding a lot of stuff to the market place at very inflated prices.  That no one is buying.  Then the bubble bursts.  And recession sets in.  As businesses lay off workers to adjust supply to meet actual demand.  And those inflated prices fall back to market values.  The higher inflationary monetary policy pushed those prices up the farther they have to fall.  And the more painful the recession will be.

You see, inflationary monetary policy interferes with the natural ebb and flow of the economy.  And the automatic price mechanism that matches supply to demand.  By trying to expand the inflationary side of the business cycle, and contract the recessionary side, governments make recessions longer.  And more painful.  Which is why Keynesian stimulus policies (lowering interests rates and deficit spending) don’t stimulate long-term economic activity.  Yet it is what most governments turn to whenever the economy slows. While there is another way to stimulate economic activity.  One that is not so popular with most governments.  Across the board tax cuts on business and personal incomes.  And reducing costly regulations on businesses.  These make a more business-friendly environment.  Encouraging businesses to expand and hire people.  Because these actions will have a positive impact on a business’ long-term outlook.  And with consumers having more disposable income (thanks to the cuts in personal income tax rates) businesses know there will be a market of any increase in production.

So there you have two ways to stimulate economic activity.  One way that works (tax cuts and reducing costly business regulations).  And one that doesn’t (lowering interest rates and deficit spending).  So why is the one that doesn’t work chosen by most governments over the one that does?  Because governments like to spend money.  It’s how they build constituencies.  By giving generous benefits to voters.  But to do that they need tax revenue.  Lots of tax revenue.  Produced by increasing tax rates as often as they can.  So they cannot stand the thought of cutting taxes.  Ever.  Which is why they always choose inflationary policies over tax cuts.   Even though those policies fail to stimulate economic activity.  As proven throughout the era of Keynesian economics.  While cutting taxes and reducing costly regulations have stimulated economic activity every time they’ve been tried.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Great Depression, Monetary Expansion, Keynesian, Smoot Hawley Tariff, Gold Window, Subprime Mortgage Crisis and Great Recession

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 2nd, 2012

History 101

There was Real Economic Activity in the Twenties so the Great Depression should only have been a Recession

The Great Depression began with the Stock Market Crash of 1929.  Which led to a period of record unemployment.  On average the unemployment rate was 13.46% during the Thirties.  Or, if you don’t count all of the make-work government jobs, 18.23%.  So what caused this unemployment?  Was it the expansionary monetary policy of the Twenties?  The Keynesians thought so.  Even the economists from the Austrian school of economics thought so.  The only ones to have predicted the Great Depression.  So were they right?  A little bit.

Yes, there was monetary expansion during the Twenties.  So a recessionary correction was inevitable.  But a depression?  When you look at the economic activity of the Twenties, no.  The Roaring Twenties were a transformative time.  It was when we began to say goodbye to the steam engine.  And said hello to electricity.  We said goodbye to the horse and buggy.  And said hello to the automobile.  We said goodbye to the horse and plow.  And said hello to the tractor.  As well as said hello to radio, motion pictures, air travel, electric lighting and electric appliances in the home, etc.  So there was real economic activity in the Twenties.  It wasn’t all a bubble.  So the Great Depression should have only been a regular recession.  But it wasn’t.  So what happened?

Government.  The government interfered with market forces.  Based on Keynesian advice.  They said the government needed to increase aggregate demand.  As that demand would encourage businesses to expand and hire new workers.  Thus lowering the unemployment rate.  And part of increasing demand was keeping wages from falling.  So people had more money to spend.  Of course, if employers were to continue to pay higher wages that meant that prices could not fall.  Like they normally do during a recession.  So the Keynesian advice was to prevent the market from correcting prices to match supply to demand.  Prolonging the inevitable recession.  But there was more bad government policy.

The Keynesian Cure for Unemployment is Inflation

The stock market was soaring in the late Twenties.  Because of that real economic growth.  So what happened to that economic growth?  Well, in part, the Smoot Hawley Tariff of 1930.  Which was in committee in 1929 before the great crash.  But investors saw it coming.  And they knew tariffs rising as much as 50% were going to cool those hot earnings they’ve been enjoying.  As well as Herbert Hoover’s progressive plans.  Who would go on to double income tax rates.  When Herbert Hoover won the 1928 election the writing was on the wall.  And investors bailed.  Especially when the Smoot Hawley Tariff was moving through committee.  Because raising the cost of doing business does not help business.  So the great earnings ride of the Twenties was ending and the investors sold their stocks to lock in their profits.  Precipitating the Stock Market Crash of 1929.  And the record unemployment that would follow.  And the Great Depression.

So the Keynesians got it wrong during the Thirties.  Their next grand experiment would be in the Seventies.  As government spending took off thanks to the Vietnam War, the Great Society and the Apollo moon program.  There was so much spending that they had to print money to pay for it all.  As they did, though, they devalued the dollar.  Which became a problem.  As the U.S. at the time agreed to exchange gold for dollars at $35/ounce.  So when the Americans made their dollar worth less our trading partners decided to take our gold instead.  Gold flew out of the gold window.  So to stop this gold flow out of the country Nixon did what any Keynesian would do.  No, he didn’t cut back spending.  He decoupled the dollar from gold.  Slamming the gold window shut.  Without any advanced warning to the world.  So we now call this action he took on August 15, 1971 the Nixon Shock.  The Keynesians were thrilled.  Because they now had no restraint in printing new money.

The reason Keynesians were happy to be able to print more money was because that was their cure for unemployment.  Inflation.  When the economy goes into recession it was just a simple matter of expanding the money supply.  Which lowers interest rates.  Which makes businesses who had no intention to expand their businesses borrow money to expand their businesses.  So to pull the economy out of recession they inflated the money supply.  And did it work?  No.  Of course it didn’t.  It just raised prices.  Increasing the cost of business.  As well as leaving consumers with less real income.  So, no, the economy didn’t improve.  It just stagnated.  The average unemployment rate during the Seventies was 6.21%.  While the average inflation rate was 7.08%.  Also, the top marginal tax rate of 70%.  Which didn’t help the anti-business environment.

The Subprime Mortgage Crisis and the Great Recession were Direct Consequences of Bad Monetary Policy

So the Keynesians failed.  Again.  Their inflationary monetary policy only made things worse during the Seventies.  All of that inflation just kept pushing prices ever higher.  Ensuring that the inevitable recession to correct those prices would be long and painful.  Which it was.  In the early Eighties.  Then Paul Volcker rang out all of that inflation.  And Ronald Reagan began bringing the top marginal tax rate down until it was at 28% by the end of the decade.  Making a more favorable business environment.  So business grew.  And began to hire new workers.  Teaching an economic lesson some in government refused to learn.  Keynesian inflationary monetary policies did not work.

During the Nineties the Keynesians were back.  Inflating the money supply slowly but surely to continue an economic expansion.  Making money available to borrow.  And borrow it people did.  Creating a long and sustained housing boom that would last for about 2 decades.  That expansionary monetary policy gave us cheap mortgages.  Making it very easy to buy a house.  Housing prices rose.  And continued to rise during those two decades.  Then President Clinton had his Justice Department tell banks to lower their standards for approving mortgages for the unqualified.  So everyone could buy a house.  Even if they couldn’t afford to pay for it.  Ushering in the subprime mortgage industry.  Further increasing the demand for houses.  And further driving up housing prices.  Making the inevitable correction a long and painful one.

Meanwhile, there was something new in the market place in the Nineties.  The Internet.  And new Internet start-ups (dot-coms) flooded the market.  Investors poured money into them.  Even though they didn’t have a product to sell.  And had no earnings.  But investors were exuberant.  And irrational.  Kids flooded into universities to get degrees in computer science.  To staff all of those Internet start-ups.  Companies went public.  Creating a stock market bubble as investors scrambled to buy their stock.  They raised a boatload of money from those IPOs.  And spent it all.  Many without producing anything to sell.  And when that money ran out they went bankrupt.  Bursting that stock market bubble.  And throwing a lot of computer scientists out of a job.  Causing a painful recession in the early 2000s that George Bush helped mitigate with tax cuts.

And low interest rates.  People were back buying houses.  But this time they were buying McMansions.  Because that easy monetary policy gave us cheap mortgage rates.  And subprime, no-documentation, zero down loans, etc., made it easier than ever to buy a house.  Housing prices soared.  And builders flooded the market with more McMansions.  Pushing prices ever higher.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were buying those toxic subprime mortgages from banks to encourage them to approve more toxic subprime mortgages.  Pushing the inevitable correction further and further out.  Running up prices so high that their fall would be a long and painful one.  Which it was when the subprime mortgage crisis hit.  As well as the Great Recession.  Direct consequences of bad monetary policy.  And the government’s interference into market forces.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 1st, 2012

Economics 101

When Prices Rise Businesses Increase Output and when Prices Fall they Decrease Output

No one likes losing their job.  Even if you hate your job.  In fact, that’s why so many people stay in jobs they don’t like.  Because it’s easier than finding a new job that provides decent pay and benefits.  Sure, there are some aggressive go-getters out there who advance themselves up the earnings ladder by making career moves.  But most people prefer a steady paycheck that meets their needs.  At least, meets their needs with only a modicum of complaining.

But resigned to our places of employment as we may be change happens.  And we lose our jobs.  For a variety of reasons.  Mostly through the ebb and flow of the free market economy.  The normal business cycle.  The boom-bust cycles of the economy.  On the boom side prices rise as people are buying a lot of things.  High prices translate into business profits.  So businesses increase output to sell at those high prices.  And other businesses enter the market.  Adding jobs to the economy.  Retailers increase their orders at their wholesale suppliers.  Who increase their factory orders.  And the factories increase their orders with their suppliers.  Adding a lot of jobs to the economy.  And lowering the unemployment rate.

But eventually too many businesses flood the market with their goods and services.  Supplying more than the people can buy.  So stuff sits on shelves longer.  Retailers reduce their orders at their wholesale suppliers.  So inventories grow at the wholesalers.  So they cut their factory orders.  Leaving the factories with excess production.  So they cut back and reduce their orders with their suppliers.  As everyone cuts back on their business operations they lay off workers.  Removing jobs from the economy.  And increasing the unemployment rate.

When Capitalism destroys some Back-Breaking and Unpleasant Jobs it creates New and Better Jobs

The business cycle is normal.  And necessary.  By using prices in the market place it constantly adjusts supply to demand.  Making sure we efficiently use capital (raw materials, factories, equipment, etc.).  And human resources (labor, research, engineering, etc.).  When we under-utilize capital and human resources prices tend to rise (demand increases).  Encouraging an increase in supply.  The boom time.  When we over-utilize capital and human resources prices tend to fall (demand falls).  Encouraging a decrease in supply.  The bust time.  Or recession.  The business cycle maintains the optimum amount of economic activity automatically.  If we let this process operate automatically.  Yes, there will be recessions.  But they will typically be short in duration.  The less prices rise during the boom the shorter the duration.  The higher prices rise during a boom the longer the duration.  But one thing for certain is that prices have to fall to correct to actual demand.  And that only happens with a recession.

There are other contributors to unemployment besides the normal business cycle.  Like structural unemployment.  Such as when technology changes and makes old jobs obsolete.  A lot of ditch diggers lost their jobs when we developed mechanized excavating equipment.  People in the whale oil business lost their jobs when John D. Rockefeller brought kerosene to the market.  The Pony Express riders lost their jobs with the advent of the telegraph.  The telephone put telegraph operators out of work.  Cell phones put people in the phone booth industry out of a job.  And destroyed a lot of jobs in the pager industry.  The personal computer put a lot of secretaries and typists out of work.  The DVD destroyed jobs in the VCR industry (and those little video cassette rewinding machines).  When they found asbestos caused lung cancer it destroyed the asbestos industry.  The Internet is putting the printed newspapers out of business.  Digital cameras destroyed jobs in the instant camera business (e.g., Polaroid).  And email and texting is causing the U.S. Postal Service to go bankrupt.

There are always unemployed people.  Thanks to the normal business cycle.  Structural unemployment.  Even to changes in consumer preferences that puts some businesses out of business.  (Wearing legwarmers was a fashion trend that sold well in the Eighties but disappeared by the Nineties.)  So there are always people losing their jobs.  But that’s normal.  And necessary.  For all of those new technologies and new consumer preferences create new industries.  And new jobs.  Jobs they staff from the unemployed.  So while free market capitalism destroys some jobs it creates new ones.  Jobs that are often better than the ones destroyed.  Such as back-breaking and unpleasant manual labor jobs replaced by less back-breaking and less unpleasant jobs.  Such as the ditch diggers being replace by a machine and an operator.  And all those workers who build, transport, fuel and maintain those machines.

Some of our Worst Recessions have happened since the Keynesians set out to make Recessions a thing of the Past

Then there’s a worse kind of unemployment.  The kind government causes.  In part with their policies that are not business-friendly.  That increase the cost of business.  Which reduces the number of jobs they can create.  Such as increasing taxes and tariffs.  And mandatory employee costs.  Such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment taxes, health insurance, etc.  As well as corporate income taxes.  Regulatory compliance costs.  And a minimum wage.  Which discourages hiring unskilled workers.  As well as increases pay levels for those earning above the minimum wage.  Who expect a much higher pay than minimum wage because of their education and/or experience.

So these policies depress the job market.  Because they increase the cost of business.  Then they compound their anti-business policies with bad monetary policy.  Keynesian economists don’t like capitalism.  Or the private sector.  Because of the business cycle.  Keynesians say they can get rid of the business cycle.  By doing what the private sector won’t do.  Hire people during times of recession.  Keynesians encourage the government to run deficits during recessions so they can spend money.  Creating government jobs.  And by creating government projects (e.g., building roads and bridges) for the private sector.  Creating jobs that the private sector won’t.  They even push interest rates below where the market would have them.  By expanding the money supply.  To encourage business to borrow money to expand their businesses for a consumer demand that isn’t there.  And they encourage consumers to buy big ticket items like houses and cars.  To further go into debt to stimulate economic activity.

The problem with these Keynesian policies is that they interfere with the automatic price mechanism to match supply to demand.  So when prices tell suppliers to reduce output these policies encourage them to increase output.  So while they may actually stimulate some economic activity it is not real economic activity.  Not driven by real demand.  Prices will continue to rise as if the boom is continuing.  The inflation created by that expansion of the money supply will even increase prices further still.  Which means when the correction happens those prices have a lot farther to fall.  Making the recession longer.  And more painful.  So the Keynesians not only failed to remove the bust-side of the business cycle.  They made the bust-side last longer than it normally would have had there been no government intervention.  Which is why some of our worst recessions have happened since the Keynesians set out to make recessions a thing of the past.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Personal Computer, Commodore 64, IBM PC, DOS, Macintosh, Mouse, GUI, Modem, Internet, HTML, URL and World Wide Web

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 7th, 2012

History 101

The IBM PC operating DOS set one Standard for the Personal Computer

The first personal computer (PC) appeared in the Sixties.  (People called these first PCs ‘minicomputers’.  But we’ll use the term PC to cover all work and home single-user computer systems.)  These first PCs were little more than a programmable calculator.  Not very useful in most homes.  PCs got a little more useful in the Seventies.  The Commodore PET, the Apple II and Radio Shack TRS-80 hit store shelves in the Seventies.  And if you were a school boy without a girlfriend chances were that you were home playing games on these PCs.  Some were even writing programs.  So these PCs offered an exciting new world for geeks and nerds.  But offered little to their sisters and parents.

In the early Eighties one of the most popular PCs hit the market.  The Commodore 64.  Which offered better graphics.  And accessories like tape drives, disc drives, joy sticks and printers.  Allowing better gaming.  And the beginning of business programs.  Like a database program.  Sure, it was primitive.  And you needed a TV to use the Commodore 64.  But it was state of the art then.  Kids who played with these PCs gave up a lot of their youth to these machines.  But other than those fascinated by technology (and ardent fans of Star Trek), few others were interested in the PC in the early Eighties.  It just wasn’t anything the masses were demanding.

Then came the IBM PC.  This set one standard for the personal computer.  And we call every personal computer that uses the IBM platform a PC.  This PC came with its own monitor.  That was one color.  Monochromatic.  Either green.  Or amber.  The monitor sat on the computer box.  In the front of the box were two 5-1/4 floppy disc drives.  State of the art then.  Extinct dinosaurs today.  Businesses started buying these for the word processing and spreadsheet programs they could run.  But the PCs themselves weren’t very people friendly.  Before you could use your word processing or spread sheet program you had to boot up your computer with DOS first.  DOS was the disc operating system that made the computer work.  In those early days you had to type a DOS command to get those word processing and spreadsheet programs to start.  It required even more DOS mastery to do some basic things like installing a printer or copying a disc.  Making these PCs complicated machines that most people still did not see any reason to buy one.

The Defense Department’s ARPA created the ARPANET which was the Forerunner to the Internet

Then came 1984.  And the Macintosh computer (the Mac).  The other computer standard.  And rival to IBM.  And like their iconic Super Bowl ad said, it changed the world.  The Mac introduced us to the mouse.  And the graphical user interface (GUI).  Which Xerox actually created during the early Seventies but didn’t do anything with it.  But a guy by the name of Steve Jobs did.  He incorporated it into the Mac and made using a computer a whole lot easier.  The PC makers soon followed, adding a mouse and the Windows GUI to the PC.  Computers were never easier to use.  Businesses began buying computers in droves.  People were even bringing them into their homes.  Primarily for gaming.  Though some were using personal finance programs to pay their bills.  Writing letters and addressing envelopes.   And a few other things.  But the masses weren’t buying them yet.  Because there was little the masses could do on these remarkable machines.

Computer scientist JCR Licklider left Bolt, Beranek and Newman (BBN) to head the Behavioral Sciences and Command and Control programs at the Defense Department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA).  He had an idea about making computers talk to each other.  Distant computers.  Others continued his work at ARPA.  Eventually issuing a request for quotation to connect the powerful computers at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), the Stanford Research Institute’s Augmentation Research Center, the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) and University of Utah.  BBN won the contract.  Built the network between these computers.  And on October 29, 1969, they sent the first message over the ARPANET.  An incredible achievement.  It was paradigm changing.  The Department of Defense had just created the Internet.  And the world would never be the same.  In another 20 years or so, that is.

The birth of the Internet in 1969 meant nothing to the masses.  The only people using it were computer people working on big, powerful computers located only at universities and research facilities.  Who could share these incredible computing resources.  But the masses had no concept of computer networks.  And weren’t asking for this technology.  They wanted other things during the Seventies.  And were only warming up to computers during the Eighties.  It was going to take a lot more to get the masses interested in this new technology.  Something that made it fun.  Without having to learn a lot of new stuff.  Something that was no more difficult than watching television.

A Favorable Business Climate in the Eighties created a High Tech Boom and ushered in the World Wide Web

As the Internet grew it allowed more computers to network with each other.  Sort of like having a new system of interstate highways.  A quick way to get places.  But unlike the interstate highways the Internet didn’t have tourist attractions and destinations of interest to go to.  At least, not yet.  And then came along Tim Berners-Lee.  Sir Timothy John “Tim” Berners-Lee these days.  Thanks to a knighthood bestowed by Queen Elizabeth II.  He helped to populate the Internet with destinations of interest.  He created a ‘web’ of hypertext documents that sat on servers.  People with computers could access these servers via their modems.  At first with dial-up modems that took forever to download anything off of the World Wide Web.  Then with broadband high speed modems.  These would connect them to the Internet.  The HyperText Markup Language (HTML) provided a common programming language for these interconnected computers.  The uniform resource locator (URL) provided a unique destination address for each thing (document, picture, video, etc.) on the World Wide Web.  And a web browser provided the virtual car to travel the Internet to these destinations of interests at various URLs all across the web.

Of course, none of this would have been possible with only those early PCs running DOS.  It was the marriage of the mouse, the GUI and the World Wide Web that made using the Internet fun and as easy as watching television.  Surfing the Internet took off in the Nineties because you could read, watch and listen to anything on the web without knowing the first thing about computer programming.  Even our parents could use email so deftly that first class mail may soon be joining the 5-1/4 floppy drive into extinction.  Along with the printed telephone directory.  And the printed newspaper.  Everything we want to know, look-up, enjoy, share, etc., is online these days.  We can even live-stream movies to our television via our PC connected to the Internet.  We bank, shop, chat and use social media like Twitter and Facebook.  We now have smartphones that can do all of this for us.  As well as take pictures and post them online.

People now use this technology throughout their day.  And most can’t imagine living without it.  This all starting with technology in the Sixties that people didn’t know a thing about.  Didn’t understand it.  And never asked for it.  But a few individuals advanced this technology.  Then some companies figured out how to commercialize it.  To make us demand something that didn’t exist only a short time earlier.  And once they explained why we had to have this technology we had to have it.  And now can’t live without it.  Proving Say’s law.  Supply creates demand.  And disproving Keynesian economics.  For demand didn’t make any of this happen.  Supply did.  A favorable business climate in the Eighties (low taxes, low regulatory burdens, sound monetary policy, etc.) created a high tech boom.  That showered us with high-tech toys.  And ushered in the next big thing.  The World Wide Web.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Say’s Law

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 6th, 2012

Economics 101

Keynesians believe if you Build Demand Economic Activity will Follow

People hate catching a common cold.  And have long wanted a cure for the common cold.  For a long time.  For hundreds of years.  But no one had ever filled this incredible demand.  All this time doctors and scientists still haven’t been able to figure that one out.  Despite knowing with that incredible demand, and our patent rights, whoever does figure that one out will become richer than Bill Gates.  Which is quite the incentive for figuring out the ingredients to make one little pill.  So why hasn’t anyone found the cure for the common cold?

There are many reasons.  But let’s just ignore them.  Like a Keynesian economist ignores a lot of things in their economic formulas.  In fact, let’s try and enter the head of some Keynesian economists.  And have them answer the question why there isn’t a cure for the common cold.  Based on their economic analysis you might hear them say that we have a cure for the common cold.  Because a high demand makes anything happen.  Or you might hear them say we don’t have a cure because enough people haven’t caught a cold yet.  And that we need to get more people to catch colds so we increase the demand for a cure.

Keynesians believe if you build demand economic activity will follow.  Like in that movie where they build a baseball diamond in a cornfield and those dead baseball players come back to play on it.  So Keynesians believe in government spending.  And love stimulus spending.  As well as taxing people to give their money to other people to spend.  Because having money to spend stimulates demand.  Consumers will consume things.  And increase consumption.  So suppliers will bring more things to market.  And create more jobs to meet that consumption demand.  Unless people save that money.  Which is something Keynesians hate.  Because saving reduces consumption.   Which is about the worst thing you could do in the universe of Keynesian economics.  Save money.  For in that universe spending trumps saving.  In fact, spending trumps everything.  No matter how you create that spending.  Keynesians actually believe taxing people so they can pay other people to dig a ditch and then fill that ditch back in stimulates economic activity.  Because these ditch diggers/fillers will take their paycheck and spend it.

Today People wait Anxiously for the next Apple Release to Learn what the Next Thing is that they Must Have

Of course there is a problem with this economic theory.  When you take money away from others they haven’t created new economic activity.  They just transferred that spending to someone else.  The people who earned that money spend less while the people who didn’t earn it spend more.  It’s a wash.  Some spending goes down.  While some spending goes up.  Actually there is a net loss in economic activity.  Because that money has to pass through government hands.  Where some of it sticks.  Because bureaucrats have to eat, too.  So the people receiving this money don’t receive as much as what was taxed away.  So Keynesian stimulus doesn’t really stimulate.  It actually reduces economic activity from what it might have been.  Because of the government’s cut.

And it gets worse.  Because this consumption demand doesn’t really create jobs.  We get nothing new out of it.  What do people demand?  Things they see.  Things they know about.  For it is hard to demand something that doesn’t exist.  You see a commercial for another incredible Apple product and you want it.  Thanks to some great advertising that explained why you must have it.  In other words, when you give money to people all they will do is buy things they’ve always wanted.  Things that already exist.  Old stuff.  It’s sort of the chicken and the egg thing.  Which came first?  Wanting something?  Or the thing that people want?

Raising taxes on Apple to create a more egalitarian society by redistributing their wealth will let people buy more of the old stuff.  But it won’t help Apple create more new things to bring to market.  Things we don’t even know about yet.  If we tax them so much that it leaves little left for them to invest in research and development how are they going to develop new things?  Things we don’t even know about yet?  Things that we will learn that we must have?  Once upon a time no one was asking for portable cassette players.  Then Sony came out with the Walkman.  And everyone had to have one.  Once upon a time there were no MP3 players.  No smartphones.  No tablet computers.  Now people must have these things.  After their manufacturers told us why we must have them.  Today people wait anxiously for the next Apple release to learn what the next thing is that they must have.

Say’s Law states that Supply Creates Demand

Supply leads demand.  We can’t ask for the unknown.  We can only ask for what the market has shown us.  Which is why Keynesian economics doesn’t work.  Because focusing on demand doesn’t work.  Giving people money to spend doesn’t stimulate creativity in the market place.  Because that money was taxed out of the market place.   Reducing profits.  Leaving less for businesses to invest into research and development.  And reducing their incentive to take big risks to bring the next big thing to market.  Like a phone you can talk to and ask questions.  Again something no one was demanding.  But now it’s something everyone wants.

Jean-Baptiste Say (1767–1832) was a French economist.  Another brilliant French mind that contributed to the Enlightenment.  And helped advance Western Civilization.  He observed how supply led demand.  Understood production was key in the economy.  He knew to create economic activity you had to focus on the producers.  Not the consumers.  Because if we encourage brilliant minds to bring brilliant things to market the demand will follow.  As history has shown.  And continues to show.  Every time a high-tech company brings something new to market that they have to explain to us before we realize we must have it.  Or said in another way, supply creates demand.  A little law of economics that we call Say’s law.

If Keynesian economics worked no one would have to have a job.  The government could print money for everyone.  And the people could take their government dollars and consume whatever was in the market place.  Which, of course, would be pretty sparse if no one worked.  If there were no Steve Jobs out there thinking of brilliant things to bring to market.  Because supply creates demand.  Demand doesn’t create supply.  For fists full of money won’t stimulate any economic activity if there is nothing to buy.  So using Keynesian stimulus as a cure for a recession is about as effective as someone’s homemade cure for the common cold.  You take the homemade concoction and in a week or two it cures you.  Of course, the cold just ran its course.  Which is how recessions end.  After they run their course.  Which can be a short course if there isn’t too much Keynesian intervention.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Falling Demand in the Great Recession forces Southwest to Raise their Ticket Prices

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 28th, 2012

Week in Review

Typically prices rise during good economic times.  And fall during bad.  Because demand rises during good economic times and falls during bad times.  And prices typically follow demand.  As businesses can raise prices when the demand for their goods or services rises.  But rising prices don’t always indicate good economic times (see Southwest joins as airlines raise fares on most U.S. routes by Nancy Trejos posted 7/24/2012 on USA Today).

A three-month break from airfare increases has ended, with Southwest Airlines raising fares by $4 to $10 round trip on most routes inside the U.S…

Kevin Schorr of Campbell-Hill Aviation Group, a Virginia consulting firm, says airlines haven’t been able to raise fares in recent months because of the economic uncertainty surrounding the presidential election and Europe.

He says airlines are cutting the number of flights they’re making available. “By doing that, they’re able to raise fares if there’s less supply,” he says…

Paul Flaningan, a spokesman for Southwest, says the airline raised fares on non-sale tickets and excluded routes shorter than 500 miles.

Southwest, on the other hand, is raising prices because of falling demand.  Fewer people are flying because of the bad economy.  Leaving some planes to fly with empty seats.  Of course, a plane flying with empty seats makes it harder for that plane to cover its flying costs.  So they pulled some planes out of service.  Because a plane sitting on the tarmac is not burning jet fuel.  And planes sitting on the tarmac helps them fill the seats on the planes remaining in service.  Allowing those planes to fly profitably.

Then there are overhead costs.  With fewer ticket sales there’s less money coming in to pay their overhead costs.  This is an example of economies of scales in reverse.  With fewer unit sales (i.e., ticket sales) they have to recover their overhead costs on fewer tickets sold by increasing the price of each ticket.

So the airlines are not raising their ticket prices because they are greedy.  They are raising them because the economy is so bad that fewer people are flying.  Forcing them to raise ticket prices on the remaining few who are still flying.  Just another indicator of how long and deep the Great Recession has been.  And continues to be.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries   Next Entries »