Video: Nobel Prize Winner Al Roth On 'Repugnant' Transactions

Congratulations, Al and Lloyd Shapley!

The below presentation by Al Roth, whose work on kidney exchanges you might recognize from Freakonomics, was made at Google in 2007. The presentation introduces you to Roth's work on repugnant transactions and market design.

Be warned that parts of Roth's presentation are a bit wonkish, but you can skip ahead to 28:12 mark if you're interested in his kidney work.

Adventures in Alternative Currencies: Bitcoin Goes Mainstream

Continuing on with our series covering adventures in alternative currencies, many were quick to proclaim the death of Bitcoin, particularly following the June 2011 bursting of the Bitcoin bubble. For example, here is some doomsaying from the normally reliable Tyler Cowen; and for a pessimistic economic historian's take see here.

But following an undeniably rocky road the little digital currency that could appears to be having the last laugh. A good read can be found here on how Bitcoin is beginning to go mainstream.

At this stage the obvious first question is why has the decentralized, 100% digital currency proven so resilient? Scientific American provides one good answer:

When they (a merchant) finalize a deal in Bitcoin, they do so knowing that the transaction can never be reversed. The Bitcoin network doesn't edit its ledger. As such, merchants no longer have to worry whether they are charging a stolen credit card. 

"'The fraud mitigation is big for Internet merchants, because they are all handling card-not-present transactions. And the business has to eat the loss if the payment is reversed later on,"' Gallippi says. "'Using Bitcoin, a business can receive a payment from any country on the planet, instantly, with no risk of fraud."'

In addition to helping cut down on fraud costs for merchants, Bitcoin is chic. Using Bitcoins to transact business is a mark of digital savvy for both tecno hipsters and the merchants who cater to them.

What the future ultimately holds for Bitcoin is less interesting to me than a more general issue, which is the apparent growing trend in alternative currencies coming into existence.

We have already seen some Congressional saber rattling about Bitcoin prior to its flash crash. Will governments continue to tolerate it, Bristol's new pound note, etc., while they remain small? Or will we see a more formal move in the not too distant future to stamp out these fledgling alternatives to government fiat money? As the article points out, government's might have a hard time shutting down Bitcoin:

But perhaps most consequential for the future of Bitcoin—in order to shut down a peer-to-peer currency exchange, one would have to terminate every node on the network. The few lawyers who have studied Bitcoin all agree that the currency inhabits a legal gray area. No one really knows how governments would react if it gains traction, but many consider the exchanges to be the easiest target for people who want to regulate Bitcoin. Decentralizing the exchanges would make that job nearly impossible. Bitcoin developers are quickly proving that they can design decentralized alternatives to even the most sophisticated financial institutions. 

"It's the asset prices, stupid"

In a good post titled 'Why Obama is Winning' Harold James points out that political strategist James Carville's famous "it's the economy, stupid" quip from the 1992 U.S. presidential election campaign has gained a new twist:

...the lesson about the economy’s electoral salience is being subtly reformulated. It is no longer the real state of the economy, but rather the perception of asset markets, that is crucial. And the perception can be far removed from reality, which means that the more the prevailing political wisdom assigns decisive electoral importance to the economy, the greater the temptation to view monetary policy’s impact on asset prices, and not on long-term growth, as crucial.

What James is basically saying is that people feel wealthier when asset prices - stocks, bonds, real estate, etc. - go up in value. This phenomenon -- the so called 'wealth effect' -- can make those who don't read The PolyCapitalist and the other recommended sites listed on the right side of this blog feel like the real, fundamental economy is doing better than it actually is. Or so the theory goes. 

Further, positive feelings about how the economy is trending due to rising asset prices can in turn drive higher consumer consumption and business investment, which in turn can increase GDP. At least in the short (and possibly) medium run.

For how long can this wealth effect ponzi-esque scheme go on? In other words, are programs like QE3 nothing more than an macroeconomic cheap trick?

No one knows for sure because, like much of modern macroeconomic theory, we are conducting a live, empirical test of the theory. And this test has arguably been running since at least 1987 (the year Alan Greenspan became Chairman of the Fed), if not 1971 (the year Nixon severed the U.S. Dollar's anchor to the price of gold).

What this means longer-term, according to James, is further politicization of the Federal Reserve and other central banks around the world:

Republicans will blame their defeat in November on the Fed’s monetary stimulus (if not on the ineffectiveness of Mitt Romney’s blunder-filled campaign). 

Meanwhile, in Europe, many national leaders, looking at Obama and the Fed, may conclude that they would do better with more direct control over the central bank. Given the difficulty of establishing such control over the European Central Bank, the euro’s next great challenge may be growing sentiment in favor of a return to national currencies.

In other words, expect central banks to remain in the politial bullseye following the 2012 U.S. and 2013 German elections, regardless of the their outcomes.

Will major reform be applied to central banks? For example, there has been open discussion of terms limits for the Federal Reserve Chairman.

Perhaps changes like term limits, greater Fed transparency, etc. are in the cards longer-term. But I am personally skeptical that any significant reforms will be enacted at the Federal Reserve prior to the end of the U.S. dollar's global hegemony.

Why Italy Isn't In Such Bad Shape, But the U.S. and UK Are

Bill Gross runs PIMCO's huge flagship bond fund which, having engaged in an untimely shorting of U.S. Treasuries, has hit a bit of a rough patch in recent times. Some have suggested that the 69-year old might be a few years past the recommended portfolio manager retirement age and that it's no longer as useful as it once was to read his monthly investment newsletters.

Think again.

While Gross's timing on shorting U.S. treasuries has been poor, and his revealing in this month's column of memory issues is a little unnerving, his analysis of the fundamentals and medium to long-term sovereign fiscal picture remains sound.

Take his updated 'Ring of Fire II' chart, the first version of which he first published a few years back. The chart (below) plots countries by both their annual public sector deficit (y-axis), which is the difference between government spending and taxes, and what is termed a 'fiscal gap' (x-axis). The fiscal gap takes into account future expenditures, which in the U.S.'s case include entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

As you can see from the chart Italy appears to be in better fiscal shape than several 'Ring of Fire' members like the U.S., Japan and the UK.  How is this possible? Italy has been experiencing what economists refer to as a 'speculative attack' from the sovereign bond market, while the three Ring of Fire countries are currently enjoying record low yields on their government debt. 

Continue reading the full article here.

Boomerang: Apple's "It Just Works" Promise to Customers

iPhone Maps app icon: what's wrong with this picture?

Mapplegate, the PR fiasco surrounding Apple's new iPhone mapping software, doesn't appear to be going away anytime soon. You can read all about the details elsewhere but I wanted to make a couple general observations.

First, flashback to 2008 and Apple's launch of their cloud email/calendar syncing product called MobileMe. From MacRumors and Fortune:

Mr. Jobs called the MobileMe team into a town hall meeting in one of Apple’s auditoriums after the service launched with problems and garnered unflattering reviews from noted tech commentators like Walt Mossberg of The Wall Street Journal. 

Mr. Jobs reportedly asked the assembled engineers and other MobileMe team members, “Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?” When one of those employees then volunteered a satisfactory answer, Mr. Jobs followed up with, “So why the fuck doesn’t it do that?”

He (Jobs) then spent some 30 minutes berating the team, telling them that they had “tarnished Apple’s reputation,” and that they, “should hate each other for having let each other down.” 

He added, “[Walt] Mossberg, our friend, is no longer writing good things about us.” 

Jobs appointed a new executive on the spot to run the MobileMe team. 

The MobileMe story may suggest that the iron fist with which Jobs ran Apple may now be missing, but it also helps explain why Apple's new map software problems are getting so much media attention.

Ever since Jobs returned to Apple the mantra he emphasized over and over again about new products was "It Just Works". What you're seeing here is what happens when, contrary to what you promise customers, something not only doesn't work but actually fails in very unpleasant ways. From NY Times tech guru David Pogue:

99 percent of it (iOS6 Maps), Apple says, is accurate. Unfortunately, when the overall data set is that huge, even half a percent of faulty data means a lot of flaws. And the trouble is, you never know when you’re going to encounter one. One wild goose chase, and you’ll find it hard to trust the software again. 

So Apple has written a beautiful, well-designed app — and fed it questionable data. It’s as though you just got a $1,500 professional coffee maker and then poured moldy beans into it.

The actual map with safe instructions

Whenever Apple stumbles, be it Maps, MobileMe, antenna-gate, Foxconn sweat shops, and my personal favorite (because I experienced it) - the irrecoverable Time Capsule hard drive failure - people pounce. People love to call out hypocrisy and shoot down 'hollier than though' types at the first sign of indiscretion. They did the same thing with Google and its 'Don't Be Evil' motto everytime Google engaged in an anywhere remotely questionable practice. It also doesn't help Apple right now that it's the world's largest company in terms of market capitalization and price to perfection, meaning it can't afford to execute sloppily.

The blow to Apple's promise to customers that everything just works certainly doesn't help the company. But whether or not Apple's maps fiasco figures prominently into this blog's prediction that Apple is nearing its high water mark remains to be seen. For more on the future of Apple, Holman Jenkins of the WSJ also has a good read.

Video: Richard Duncan on The New Depression

Lies, damned lies, and statistics: Spanish and Greek youth unemployment much lower than reported

One of the most commonly cited Eurozone crisis statistics over the past several years has been youth unemployment, which in hard hit countries such as Spain and Greece has been reported to be as high as 50%.

In a recent post over at Project Syndicate Steven Hill dissects Eurostat's unemployment rate methodology and comes up with markedly different figures:

Unemployment estimates also are surprisingly misleading – a serious problem, considering that, together with GDP indicators, unemployment drives so much economic-policy debate. Outrageously high youth unemployment – supposedly near 50% in Spain and Greece, and more than 20% in the eurozone as a whole – makes headlines daily. But these numbers result from flawed methodology, making the situation appear far worse than it is. 

The problem stems from how unemployment is measured: The adult unemployment rate is calculated by dividing the number of unemployed individuals by all individuals in the labor force. So if the labor force comprises 200 workers, and 20 are unemployed, the unemployment rate is 10%. 

But the millions of young people who attend university or vocational training programs are not considered part of the labor force, because they are neither working nor looking for a job. In calculating youth unemployment, therefore, the same number of unemployed individuals is divided by a much smaller number, to reflect the smaller labor force, which makes the unemployment rate look a lot higher.

So what we have here is a simple division problem: the unemployment numerator is accurate, but the labor force denominator has been fudged.

What are the real youth unemployment figures in countries like Spain and Greece?

The youth unemployment ratio – the number of unemployed youth relative to the total population aged 16-24 – is a far more meaningful indicator than the youth unemployment rate. Eurostat, the European Union’s statistical agency, calculates youth unemployment using both methodologies, but only the flawed indicator is widely reported, despite major discrepancies. For example, Spain’s 48.9% youth unemployment rate implies significantly worse conditions for young people than its 19% youth unemployment ratio. Likewise, Greece’s rate is 49.3%, but its ratio is only 13%. And the eurozone-wide rate of 20.8% far exceeds the 8.7% ratio.

Certainly these much lower youth unemployment figures are still a matter for serious concern. And as Hill notes later in his post it is likely that at least a significant portion of young people who are in school are there because they cannot find work.

There is, however, a substantive difference between the 50% shock headline figures and the real picture of youth unemployment, and this difference may explain why we have not seen a full-on revolution in countries like Greece or Spain (at least not yet).

The final question is why has the media only reported the much larger youth unemployment figures and not the arguably more meaningful, lower youth unemployment ratio? Certainly the larger figure is much more sensational and attention grabbing.

At the risk of sounding conspiratorial, another way of asking this question is who benefits by reporting the larger figure? Undoubtedly larger figures aid the narrative of the pro-bailout and pro-stimulus, anti-austerity contingent. 50% youth unemployment sounds pretty drastic, and drastic times call for drastic measures.

As they say, "never waste a good crisis".

California's Debt 6-12X Higher Than Previously Estimated

California Governor Jerry Brown thought he only had a $28 billion 'wall of debt' to deal with, but it turns out it is much larger. From the NY Times:

Directors of the State Budget Crisis Task Force said their researchers had found a lot of other debts that did not turn up in California’s official tally. Much of it involved irrevocable promises to provide pensions to public workers, health care for retirees, the cost of delayed highway maintenance and an estimated $40 billion bill to bring drinking water up to federal standards. 

They also pointed out many of the same unpaid bills from previous years that the governor had brought to light, like $8 billion in delayed payments to schools and community colleges, and $250 million that was raided from a fund dedicated to transportation and treated as revenue. 

The task force estimated that the burden of debt totaled at least $167 billion and as much as $335 billion. Its members warned that the off-the-books debts tended to grow over time, so that even if Mr. Brown should succeed in pushing through his tax increase, gaining an additional $50 billion over the next seven years, the wall of debt would still be there, casting its shadow over the state.

First, $40 billion for drinking water? As a longtime Bay Area resident I've regularly sung the praises of San Francisco's water and had no idea the rest of the state's water was so far off the mark.

Second, it is important to keep figures like California's estimated $335 billion debt in perspective. According to Wikipedia, California has the world's ninth largest economy with a 2010 gross state product (GSP) of $1.9 trillion, or 13% of the United States gross domestic product. Assuming the top end $335 billion debt figure is accurate that works out to only a 17% debt to GDP ratio for the state. Compare that with Japan's and U.S. federal governments's approximately 225% and 100% debt to GDP ratio's, respectively.

Having said that, the significance of these new debt estimates should not be underestimated, particularly when you consider how politically difficult it has been for Brown and the California legislature to address a shortfall which was estimated as a small fraction of the true debt.

Other than the NY Times article, which was cross-published at CNBC, this news is getting zero attention. This is somewhat surprising given that the independent panel includes former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. However, I couldn't find anything on either the LA Times or the San Francisco Chronicle's website on this topic.

"Those whom the gods would destroy, they first encourage to borrow cheaply"

Today's must read on the next financial panic.

Adventures in Alternative Currencies - Bristol Launches Its Own

The Bristol ten pound banknote

Here is another reason to love the quirky, iconoclastic south western British city.

From the BBC:

It is a direct assault on global trade. The city of Bristol has launched its own currency, which cannot be used in Bath, never mind Berlin or Bombay. 

More than 350 firms in the city have signed up, making it the UK's largest alternative to sterling. 

Unlike previous schemes which have relied on paper, the Bristol Pound can be used online, even by mobile phone.

h/t Tyler