Merry Christmas and a Happy New 2012!

The new 2012 bears a lot of questions on the eurozone, UK, US, China and so on, but lacks to provide many answers. Unemployment is still at high levels and is likely only to rise. Output on the other hand, as well as investments, are likely to fall. Stagnation is upon us. The reports of the most prominent world institutions predict this, but they also predict a bounce back in 2013. This is a bias their models hold, since no one takes into account the possible reactions if the euro falls, or if the Chinese bubble finally bursts. The picture is gloomy and the politicians are realizing this more quickly than before as their election dates are closer. The current situation of postponing the necessary solutions is only pilling up the pressure on them and is increasing the dissatisfaction and antagonism among voters. Sooner or later, we will all have to face the necessary consequences and accept painful solutions. Balanced budgets and increased bailout funds will result only in more debt accumulation and won’t create a favourable environment for private sector growth. It may temporary restore investor confidence but the banks will still be reluctant to lend and the regulatory requirements will still raise costs for private sector enterprises. The upcoming year will eventually give us the answers on why the recovery is taking so long and why worldwide investor and consumer confidence is experiencing its longest low streak since the 1930s. We already know the welfare state is unsustainable in a productive-less and freedom lacking economy. Now we must find out how to fix it and find the proper remedy for an overblown and overdependent system. 

In the mean time, in these festive times let us enjoy the moment and celebrate the holidays, fearfully looking forward to the new 2012.

Comments

  1. kyle81 January 2012 at 01:25

    The reason for the continued slump can be summed up in one word, Uncertainty.

    Consider all of the following reasons for uncertainty. A feckless government, record debt, allied governments going bankrupt, coups and revolts in sensitive parts of the world, and natural disasters.

    All of these things add up to uncertainty which harms not only investment, but consumption.

    By the way, I had an Economics professor named Vukovik in the 1970's

    ReplyDelete
  2. Vuk Vukovic1 January 2012 at 16:46

    I agree, uncertainty is adding to the economic woes around the world more than anything else at the moment.
    I covered this in a previous blog post entitled 'restoring confidence' http://im-an-economist.blogspot.com/2011/10/restoring-confidence.html
    It's an interesting read, one of the most viewed on the blog

    Unfortunately, I'm not your professor from the 70-ies, I was born a bit later than that :) but it's nice to know there's more Vukovics around

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Short-selling explained (case study: movie "Trading Places")

Image
After seeing the movie "Trading Places" (1983), starring Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd, for the thousandth time during the holiday season, I decided to write a quick post explaining what happened at the end of this movie that gets so many people puzzled (including me for the first couple of times I've seen it). This entertaining 80s comedy can actually teach you more about finance and trading than any other Hollywood movie (not counting documentaries), including the infamous "Wall Street" (1987), starring Michael Douglas as the ruthless Gordon Gecko, and especially the latest Scorsese film "The Wolf of Wall Street" (2013). Anyway, we all know the story from Trading Places. Dan Aykroyd plays a snobbish investor Louis Winthorpe ("the Third"), while Eddie Murphy plays a street con artist Billy Ray Valentine whose lives get reversed as a result of a bet between two cruel millionaires, the Duke brothers. The Dukes own a commodities bro
Read more

Economic history: mercantilism and international trade

Image
All too often during poor economic times many debunked economic fallacies of the past get reinvented. The reason is simple: a search for ideas and solutions alternative to the "mainstream" (however we define it) allows those who succumb to these fallacies to repeat the ancient errors classical economics was hoping to get rid of. The short-termism of politics plays a crucial role in the process of persistent perpetuation of such fallacies. This is why in times like these it is essential to go back in economic history and debunk some of the ideas that tend to surface repeatedly. In the following couple of posts, I attempt to do just that.  Misunderstanding trade  One of the most misunderstood areas of economics is international trade. More precisely, the idea that if we were to boost net exports - by subsidizing exports and constraining imports - we can achieve higher GDP growth. If one looks at the simple arithmetic of a standard Keynesian macro model: Y=C+I+G+NX, the
Read more

Rent-seeking explained: Removing barriers to entry in the taxi market

Image
The taxi market is undoubtedly one of the best examples of something economists like to call rent-seeking . What does this phenomenon stand for and why do economists (particularly political economists) devote a lot of attention to it?  The classical definition was given by Gordon Tullock back in his  1967  seminal paper "The welfare cost of tariffs, monopolies and theft" , even though the phrase itself was coined by Anne Krueger in 1974 .  Rent-seeking is a process of gaining private benefits through the political process (by lobbying or logrolling for example). It implies gaining protection for a certain privileged group, which in return promises political support, large campaign contributions, or even bribes. This protection varies from giving a monopoly status to a certain company, regulating market entry than hampers competition (such as introducing licences to specific occupations), imposing tariffs to import goods to protect the domestic industry, handing out su
Read more

Graphs (images) of the week: Separated by a border

Image
Usually comparing countries or regions requires looking at GDP growth data, GDP per capita, living standards, relative income or even the happiness index. But even a simple areal glimpse at the borders separating two systems can be more than enough to conclude which country is richer, healthier, more educated and on average more prosperous. It tells us that the causes of between-country differences have to be more than just climate, geography, culture or mentality. Particularly when the same nation is separated by nothing more than a border depicting the striking differences in political systems of the two countries (a classical example here are East and West Germany, but an equally good example can be North or South Korea).  As a result I found that the following set of images paint a better  picture  on between-country differences   than any existing data on global inequality.  The first one is from a  blog post I encountered on the Why Nations Fail blog, comparing the citi
Read more