Subsidies or Thailand's Descent Into Egyptification

One of the biggest (fiscal) drags on the Egyptian economy is its continued use of massive subsidies for food and energy. At a touch less than a third of the national budget, it eats up a lot of money arguably better spent elsewhere. Moreover, you can hardly say that these subsidies have bought the country peace as the natives have been restless for years and years now and seemingly enjoy killing each other for the heck of it. Having (temporarily) exhausted Detroitifaction as a metaphor for industrialized countries descending into Hades, let us now talk of something happening in the developing countries. You guessed it--Egyptification.

Unfortunately, there is something of the sort going on right here in Southeast Asia. A few weeks ago I discussed the mounds and mounds of rice being hoarded by the Thai government. Not only is the national purse being hurt by this open-ended commitment to buy these crops at well over market prices, but so much food is simply spoiling away since this massive stockpile cannot be sold without significantly denting prices commanded by rice. Thai PM Yingluck Shinawatra tried to roll back the price at which rice was purchased, but quickly chickened out once rice farmers complained. Since her electoral base lies not among city slickers in Bangkok but rather farmers in rural areas, she knew better than to commit political suicide. No matter how economically ruinous, there is little turning back from rice subsidies.

Almost unbelievably, instead of backing down, Yingluck and Co. are now extending subsidies to include rubber. As one of it not the world's largest producers of natural rubber, Thailand is also buffeted by global price fluctuations of this commodity.

Thailand has offered 30 billion baht ($959 million) in aid to rubber farmers to help offset a plunge in the price of the commodity, the latest in a string of costly populist policies the government has aimed at rural communities. Farmers are welcoming the promised funding, though marches are still planned across the country for Monday aimed at keeping up pressure on Bangkok and to ensure the policy is enacted. 

This effort comes on top of (unsuccessful) initiatives to buoy rubber prices by withdrawing supply alongside other major Asian exporters Indonesia and Malaysia given slack global demand. Having caved in to key constituencies alike rice and rubber farmers, the fear is that the Yingluck government will now be obligated to entertain every other agricultural interest group:

The government is walking a tightrope—providing subsidies and other benefits to farmers as soft commodity prices fall while trying to keep a lid on expenditures, which are nevertheless booming. This week's subsidy offer comes in the wake of an aborted government effort to pull back on its rice subsidization program, which has led to massive stockpiles of the staple grain.

The worry, though, is that withholding money from farmers may risk fueling social unrest in a country prone to political violence. "Now that rice farmers and rubber farmers get subsidies from the government, farmers of other crops will want to have their share," said Aat Pisanwanich, director of the Center for International Trade Studies at Thai Chamber of Commerce University. "The government has to come up with longer-term measures because this subsidy isn't sustainable."

These subsidies tend to be self-perpetuating: once granted, they are hard to rescind--especially in light of the current trend towards softening commodity prices. You wish the Thais well, but I do not see a smooth transition out of these subsidies. Already, Thailand has slipped into recession, and you can only imagine calls for these market-distorting measures to increase from agricultural interests whom the Shinawatras have become exceedingly obsequious towards lest they lose this key constituency.

UPDATE: Not that the rubber farmers are content already as they are out in force to, well, ensure the government buys rubber at uncompetitive prices. 

So, Why are China, Japan, ROW Dumping Treasuries?

There is a debate going on here in the rest of the world concerning the United States. It isn't really whether American officials are trustworthy, but whether they are more of BS artists or ripoff artists. When it comes to foreign holdings of US Treasuries, it's arguably both: The United States likes to con others with "strong dollar" rhetoric as it runs unfathomable deficits and the dollar falls to some godforsaken level. There is a lie, and a large financial consequence to believing in such nonsense.

Or, is there a limit to global gullibility? Will the rest of the world continue to be held hostage to this "financial balance of terror"? As it turns out, the top two suckers--China and Japan--have actually been selling loads of dollar detritus in recent months. What's more, the rest of the world are following suit, intensifying movement away from greenback garbage:

China and Japan led an exodus from U.S. Treasuries in June after the first signals the U.S. central bank was preparing to wind back its stimulus, with data showing they accounted for almost all of a record $40.8 billion of net foreign selling of Treasuries. The sales were part of $66.9 billion of net sales by foreigners of long-term U.S. securities in June [there is a two-month lag with this data series], a fifth straight month of outflows and the largest since August 2007, U.S. Treasury Department data showed on Thursday.

China, the largest foreign creditor, reduced its Treasury holdings to $1.2758 trillion, and Japan trimmed its holdings for a third straight month to $1.0834 trillion. Combined, they accounted for about $40 billion in net Treasury outflows.

Bernanke spooking the markets by suggesting that the Fed will soon stop accumulating nearly unlimited Treasuries to lower borrowing costs is resulting in others' pre-emptive action to avoid near-term losses:

"The sell-off in Treasuries and Bernanke's tapering remarks are related," said Michael Woolfolk, global market strategist at BNY Mellon in New York. "Lightning doesn't strike in the same place twice, but Bernanke repeated his comments in June and that roiled the market."

He said the net Treasury outflow was the highest since at least 1977 when the government started compiling the data. June was the fifth straight month that foreign investors sold long-term U.S. securities, but the specific selling of long-term government bonds was the big turnaround as foreigners had bought $11.3 billion of Treasuries in May.

Are we reaching the outer limits to global gullibility in buying Treasuries? Given the aforementioned time lag in reporting the data, it will be interesting to note from forthcoming reports whether rising interest rates Stateside are driven more by Bernanke signalling the end of "money for nothing" policies or by central banks worldwide dumping Treasuries en masse.

Heaven knows, this world would be a much better place if the latter trend continues. Central bankers of the world, don't be afraid to dump those treasuries and teach America a lesson; in the end, only you will be responsible for your people suffering losses from hanging on to such worthless pieces of paper in their name.  

UPDATE: To be fair, the FT expects some bottom-fishing to buoy capital inflows into America in the next report.

An Economist Gets Pregnant

Emily Oster looks at the evidence.

The impact of bullying

If you do not manage to be part of the clique of "popular" people in school, or even worse are bullied, the conventional wisdom reassures you telling you that it is going to be all downhill from here on for the popular people, and that the bullied ones are going to be significantly more successful after school. I think the reason is that after high school, people split into the circles they really belong to, do not have to suffer other people they have nothing in common with and can really deploy their talents. The bulliers and popular people have lost their only edge, particular social interactions, once they get into the labor force and cannot progress.

Nick Drydakis tries to bring some empirical analysis to all this by using the Greek Behavioral Study dataset, which includes information about recollection about bullying, including frequency and intensity. It shows that at least part of the conventional wisdom (or at least how I perceived it) is wrong. Being bullied is associated with lower labor market outcomes, and it is hypothesized this is due to lower self-esteem which has also translated in lower academic achievement while in school (before age 18) and is perpetuated once in the labor force. Thus those whose mental health has been affected by bullying suffer significantly, and they seem to be more common than those who manage to brush it off and go on with life. However, the bullied ones achieve more human capital as measured by computer or English skills and higher degrees, but it looks like they do not managed to turn this into more employment or higher wages. The Greek labor market may be in part responsible for this. For example, the impact of bullying is particularly strong for homosexuals, and all those may not have a fair shot in the Greek labor market either. One should not read too much into a causality from bullying to outcomes here, as the author is careful to highlight. The study has nothing to say, however, about the bulliers and the popular people.

Top Economics graduate programs are not as good as you think

Along with business schools, Economics is where pedigree matters most in the placement of PhD students to academic positions. Students from top ranked (or considered such) programs have a job almost guaranteed in research universities, and students from lower ranked universities find it very hard to break into such universities no matter what their performance is. In part, this is due to the fact that we tend to hire faculty fresh out of graduate school, while other fields go first through post-docs, and that publication delays imply that graduating students have typically no publication. Thus one has to rely on reputations only (or actually read their papers, but then are you going to read the papers of all students from lower ranked programs?).

John Conley and Ali Sina Onder find that while there is indeed a steep gradient across program rankings, there is an even steeper gradient within programs. They use student rankings within programs and cohorts and their publication output after six years, that is, when they are up for tenure. Looking at AER equivalents, they find that the top Toronto student is equivalent to the number three from Berkeley, for example. And to illustrate how steep the gradient is, the median Harvard student has after six years only 0.04 AER equivalent publications, despite coming from the #2 program. This means that more than half of Harvard students are not tenurable in any research-oriented institution.

I see two major conclusions from this: 1) Stop worrying so much about where PhD students are graduating from. It is OK to hire students from lower ranked programs as long as they excelled in those programs. 2) Even the top places should acknowledge that not all students should take research positions and need to prepare them for other ones, like industry, government or purely teaching jobs. These students are screwed twice: they are sent to tenure-track positions that they will never get tenure in, and they are woefully unprepared for the jobs they should take.

Strategic self-ignorance

There are times were we kind of feel we have done something stupid and do not want to know the result. For example, the grade of a test or how a recently bought stock is faring. Such situations are linked to regret aversion, where you consciously try to block available information after a decision has been taken. What about blocking readily available information before you take a decision?

Linda Thunström, Jonas Nordström, Jason F. Shogren, Mariah Ehmke and Klaas van 't Veld relate to the case of temptation, where you consciously block out information about the consequences of your action. Specifically, think about a delicious but calorie-laden meal. You kind of know it is bad for your health, but you decide not to look at the calorie count, although it is available. And that is what they had people do in a experiment where they invited people for lunch with two option: a low and an high calorie meal. It was, however, not obvious which one was high calorie, and participants could look it up. 58% chose not to and ate significantly more calories. How do the self-ignorant differ from the control group? It should not surprise anyone that they smoke more, have lower incomes, know less about nutrition and are more impatient. More interesting is that they are over-represented among males, educated and older people. Having a higher body-mass index leads to less self-ignorance. I wonder whether some of those results are endogenous to the setup of the experiment, where all those questions about nutrition are asked, which may lead people to become more conscious about their weight, especially less educated ones.

PS: too bad the equations in the paper are unreadable. Never use the Word equation editor...

Why Venezuela Has Egypt-Like Forex Reserves

Unlike many (left-leaning) colleagues, I remain profoundly unimpressed by the "post-capitalist" stylings of countries alike Argentina and Venezuela. When it comes to the geopolitics of the world economy, I am generally unconcerned about whether countries style themselves as "pro-American" or "anti-American" since it's largely beside the point. The point being, of course, that perceived friendliness to the world's largest economy has little to do with sound economic management.

Today we have an excellent case in point: How the heck can Latin America's second largest oil exporter after Brazil have Egypt-like foreign exchange reserves? With sustained high oil prices for years and years, it's hard to imagine but it's true in the case of [surprise!] Venezuela. Nor did it help that Hugo Chavez stashed a lot of foreign exchange in state-owned enterprises, which are now likely to be recalled to help repay the debts of this financial basket case:

Venezuela can more than double its reported reserves, which fell to a nine-year low of $22.9 billion on Aug. 5, if it chooses to take control of all the dollars held by state enterprises as of March 31. Increasing its foreign-currency holdings would bolster Venezuela’s ability to repay $40.5 billion in obligations at a time when its borrowing costs, at 11.59 percent [!!!-such confidence in this socialist paradise], are almost double the developing-nation average, according to Bank of America Corp. in New York. 

Alike many gold bugs, Venezuela (wrongly) bet on ever-rising prices of gold, in which it has kept much of its forex reserves. So, when gold prices headed south, you know what happened to its reserves:

Venezuela’s liquid cash reserves fell 31 percent in the first half of the year to $3.1 billion, the central bank said yesterday. The bank had 11.8 million troy ounces of gold as of June 30, which it valued at $18 billion, down from $20 billion as of Dec. 31...

The 23 percent decline in reserves this year is mostly due to a 43 percent plunge in the price of gold, which accounts for 72 percent of holdings [my emphasis], Rodriguez said. Because the central bank values its gold holdings using a six-month moving average, reported reserves may fall by $1.1 billion more if gold remains at current prices, Rodriguez said in an Aug. 8 report.

“The fact that Maduro has given control of these funds to the central bank is definitely a credit positive move,” Bianca Taylor, senior sovereign analyst at Loomis Sayles & Co. in Boston, said yesterday in an e-mailed response to questions. “However, it is not a panacea. Venezuela’s problems are deeply structural.”

In other words, Venezuela has precious little cold, hard cash. ($3.1 billion? What's that, 1.25 seconds'  worth of US deficits?) Moreover, there is some doubt as to whether much dollars--currency of el diablo--are actually stashed away in SOEs. At any rate, I am still gobsmacked at the level of financial mismanagement here. You must be radically incompetent to turn Latin America's second largest oil exporter into a holder of Egypt-like forex reserves. Hoarding gold? Puhleeze.