Archives for posts with tag: Free market

Image

Robert Prechter, a market analyst who has correctly called all the ‘hiccups’ in the financial market, has crossed economy with sociology and came up with the concept of socionomics.

The idea is that behind all that is happening in the human realm lies something he calls ‘the social mood’ and if we want to understand what lies in store for us we’d be better off trying to figure out the changes in this mood rather than doing complicated econometric calculations or social forecasting.

Maybe not very scientific but he was spot on in his predictions – up to now, anyway.

According to his method this piece if news is akin to a new dawn: “The minibar may soon be extinct in most hotel rooms as guests spend more time in the lobby than in their rooms” (The most attentive among you will notice that I left out ‘experts say’ – because I feel that over reliance on ‘expertise’ is one of the explanation for what has happened  – but this is another, even if closely related, topic)

Why?

First of all because ‘hotel dwellers’ are very good predictors of socio-economic trends, they tend to have more resources and be more involved in significant decision making processes than the regular Joe.

Secondly because the main thing that let the last crises happen was a strange disconnection between those who made the most significant economic and political decisions and those who had to suffer them. Things happened as if those at the driving wheel were convinced that they could pursue their individual goals (getting rich and powerful) regardless of the consequences their behavior inflicted on the rest of the people.
Even stranger is the fact that too many of the rest of us validated that attitude by copying it. Remember that the financial meltdown started when people in the US could no longer service the huge debts they (irrationally we consider now) piled upon their most prized possessions, their own houses? And people did that exactly because they foolishly tried to mimic ‘the life style of the rich and wealthy’!

Thirdly, by being a ‘divergence’  this is a very powerful signal.
Let me be a little more specific. In ‘technical market analysis’ a divergence happens when the price of something trends in one direction while one or more ‘indicators’ trend in the opposite one. Usually a divergence is a reliable signal that the price will soon change its trend also.

In this case the ‘price’ is the general attitude of the people towards everything. Before 2007 carelessness was the norm, ‘live today as if it were your last’. Prices were paid, no questions asked and everybody retreated to their gilded dens to savor they prey. People left the city centers where individuals of different extractions lived intermingled and together with small businesses and shops and congregated in walled in communities in the suburbia where the population is self segregated according to various criteria – money first and ethnicity, ‘alternative life styles’, etc. on a second level. Strangely enough social life in quite a large number of these communities is almost inexistent, the inhabitants coming and going without noticing their neighbors. Meanwhile the size of the housing units grew without any real reason since the number of the family members living together has shrunk. The size of the cars used for commuting also grew because ‘bigger cars are safer’ – another strange development since while indeed bigger cars are somewhat safer there are some more efficient ways of increasing overall safety: public transport, rail, defensive driving…

The indicator is the attitude of the ‘hotel-dwellers’ – who, as I mentioned before, are a very interesting cross section of the society. During the bubble years we have witnessed the apparition of the room service – the mighty didn’t want to mingle with the less fortunate, he wanted his whims to be privately catered for – and the mini-bar – the ‘less fortunate’ wanted to enjoy the same perks, couldn’t afford the price so had to settle for less variety.
‘Conventional wisdom’ has it that the advent of technology would have enforced that trend, with wireless connectivity at his disposal why would a hotel guest already hooked up to FB, Netflix and the Cloud ever come out of his room except maybe to go to his business meetings, the beach or the gym?

And here we have a ‘divergence’ gaping at us: while the society at large is trying desperately to resume ‘business as usual’ “People are migrating out of their rooms rather than being in the rooms,” !

Several things might have contributed to this. Some of the hoteliers reduced the area covered by free wireless to the lobby area to lure their guests out in the open where they could be enticed to buy other services, the ‘technology’ became so affordable as to become accessible to the cost conscious, etc., etc., but the essential thing is that public attitude is changing.

Now we’ll have to wait and see where this incipient change in ‘the social mood’ will take us to.

PS. By clicking his picture you’ll get to a very interesting interview of Bob Prechter. The most interesting part starts at 15:00 where he discuses how people look up to the government for a solution.

Ca tot ‘sarbatorim’ trezirea din 1989…

In postarea trecuta am adus vorba despre Sven Hassel.
Cei mai tineri dintre noi s-ar putea sa nici nu fi auzit despre el. A fost un soldat din armata germana care a reusit sa supravietuiasca razboiului – si l-a facut pe tot, din ’39 pana in ’45 – iar apoi a povestit ce i s-a intamplat.

In ’40 a dezertat. A fost condamnat la puscarie iar dupa cateva luni a fost transferat intr-un regiment disciplinar. Ca atare a mai facut un stagiu de instructie. Numai ca de data asta ‘instructia’ avea mai degraba de a face cu ‘reeducarea’ (vezi ‘Fenomenul Pitesti’) decat cu antrenamentul specific militar. Intr-una din cartile lui povesteste ca ‘instructia’ asta cuprindea si momente in care trebuiau sa se prezinte la o ‘inspectie de front’ (unde pentru o pata de noroi pe uniforma primeau pedepse crunte) la o jumatate de ora dupa ce se intorsesera din cite un mars de doua zile prin noroaie. Singura solutie era sa intre sub dus cu uniforma si tot echipamentul pe ei si sa spele tot acolo, pe loc. E de presupus ca apa de la dus era daca nu calda atunci macar incropita, altfel nu ar fi avut nici o sansa…

Ei bine, in primele 3 sau 4 saptamani de armata acolo unde si cand am fost eu incorporat nu a curs apa aproape de loc. Nici rece si cu atat mai putin cea calda. Si mi-am “satisfacut stagiul militar” in mijlocul unui municipiu – Focsani – din Romania anului 1981 si nu undeva in Germania anului 1940…

Pana la urma asta a fost motivul pentru care au cazut regimurile comuniste. Nu comunismul nu ‘a cazut’ inca, mai sunt nostalnici care mai cred ca utopia asta ar fi putut fi pusa in practica, dar despre asta mai tarziu!

Regimurile comuniste au cazut pentru ca asa ceva nu putea functiona!

It’s the economy, stupid!

Ce a fost.
Ce ar fi putut sa fie.
Ce a iesit.
Ce va sa fie.

Voi incepe cu sfarsitul.

Vom repeta aceleasi greseli de cate ori va fi nevoie pana cand vom intelege ca greseala este inevitabila si ca daca tot am facut-o ar fi mai bine sa invatam ceva din ea.
 A te intoarce din drum pina inainte de greseala si a porni din nou cu gandul de a nu o (mai) repeta nu face decat sa te aduca, din nou si de cate ori este nevoie, in fata aceleiasi lectii: decat sa te ridici pentru a cadea din nou mai bine mergi in patru labe pana se termina gheata!

Ce ar fi putut sa fie? Greu de spus. Ar fi putut sa fie mai bine dar in acelasi timp ar fi putut sa fie mult mai rau. Sa ne bucuram ca a fost.

Ce a iesit? Din cate se pare nu ‘a iesit’ inca. Ne ‘pregatim’ cu naivitate sa urcam, precum Sisif, acelasi deal la capatul caruia in realitate se afla o raspantie numai ca pana acum noi am vazut doar varianta ‘din nou si de la capat’.

Ce a fost? Eu m-as intreba mai degraba ‘a cata oara a fost?’…

Nu, nu ma refer doar la caderea comunismului sau la criza financiara!
In realitate atunci nu a cazut comunismul ci doar prea putine dintre regimurile comuniste, am sa  dezvolt subiectul asta mai tarziu.
Ma refer la faptul ca nu am inteles nimic!
Pe ce ma bazez cand spun asta?
Simplu. Pe faptul ca peste nici 20 de ani ni s-a intamplat acelasi lucru si atunci iarasi am fost luati prin surprindere precum si pe faptul ca ne straduim de zor pentru a reface seturile de conditii care au condus la cele doua miscari tectonice.

Ca sa fie clar ce am in cap am sa o spun pe sleau: atat prabusirea regimurilor comuniste cat si criza economica din 2007-2008 au avut aceiasi cauza si din pacate lucrurile au reinceput sa curga in aceiasi directie: autoritarismul/centralismul politic revine in forta – chiar daca sub alte forme – iar modul de functionare al economiei mondiale revine incet la obiceiurile de dinainte de 2007.

Toate necazurile astea provin din faptul ca ne credem mai destepti decat suntem cu adevarat.
Asta duce pe de o parte la aroganta – unii dintre noi cred ca stiu ei mai bine ce este potrivit pentru toti ceilalti – iar pe de alta la ‘autocastrare’ – prea mare parte dintre acesti ‘ceilalti’ accepta cu resemnare concluzia ‘logica si rationala’ la care au ajuns: aceea ca ‘nu ma pot descurca de unul singur’, ‘El este acela’ asa ca se aseaza disciplinati si ascultatori in spatele ‘lui’, ii indeplinesc fara sa cracneasca ordinele si apoi isi justifica ‘rational’ faptele in fata propriei constiinte.
“In conditiile acelea nu se putea altfel!”
Daca am avea mai putina credinta oarba in rationalitatea noastra si mai multa modestie poate ca am fi in stare sa intelegem mai multe din ceea ce ni se intampla.

Aproape nimic din ceea ce veti citi in continuare nu este nou. Eu nu sunt un tip caruia sa ii vina ‘idei’! In schimb imi place foarte mult ca atunci cand ma intalnesc cu una sa o intorc pe toate fetele si sa incerc sa vad ce legaturi exista intre ea si celelalte idei cu care m-am intalnit pana atunci.

Ceea ce urmeaza poate fi asemuit cu un ‘carnet de bal’. Este ‘lista’ ideilor cu care m-am intalnit. Am schimbat pe ici pe colo ordinea, unele intalniri nu au fost chiar atat de intamplatoare ca altele dar nimic nu a fost atat de premeditat precum este faptul ca am inceput, in sfarsit, aceasta impartasanie.

David Simon, the executive producer of the Wire, has reached the conclusion that “There are now two Americas. My country is a horror show!” and then starts to discus the situation from a rather Marxist point of view. He is both right and wrong.

He is right about the world becoming too polarized for it’s own good but I don’t think he understands how capitalism and the free market really work. Nevertheless he is right when saying that the western economy took of when the existence of considerable discretionary income created a huge solvent demand for goods and services.
And it’s exactly the disappearance of that discretionary income that is pulling in the reins on the economy right now. But the solution is not to increase the minimum wage but to open the market in earnest. In other words we shouldn’t make McDonald’s pay more its employees but somehow make it possible for those employees to quit their jobs at McDonald’s and open some new businesses of their own.

“…the general concept of the efficient markets hypothesis is that financial markets are “informationally efficient…” ”

Stretching this concept we may conclude that the market is efficient (the prices reflect the ‘real’ value of the traded assets) because every economic agent acts rationally and that all the pertinent information is always available for everybody. This last sentence might sound far-fetched indeed but: “The third form, known as the strong form (or strong-form efficiency), states that asset prices adjust almost instantaneously not only to new public information but also to new private information.” (ibidem)

So, theoretically, we have perfectly rational economic agents and free flowing information.

In this case (no emotions involved, no shenanigans, brains in perfect working order) why on Earth do we still need the market?

One trained professional (OK, a board, a panel, something: the workload is too big for one individual) would be enough to settle prices based on available information and to adjust them as new information come in, right?

Are you flabbergasted? Well, you should! This is exactly how communists used to run the economies of the ‘popular democracies’ where they had risen to power. (It seems that in the 20 years since the fall of the European communism the concept of ‘popular democracy’ has evolved but nobody notices that this is a huge pleonasm – any real democracy is indeed ‘popular’. The communists used the concept to suggest that only the communist democracy – an oxymoron – was a true democracy; all other forms of democracies being deemed incomplete.

OK, so what’s the point of all this?
Well, some people advocate total deregulation of the economy/market.
As contemporary events have shown us economic trends in a mis-regulated environment give birth to ‘too big to fail’ entities. I’m afraid that a completely deregulated one will produce, in time, nothing but even bigger conglomerates.

So what should we do? Tighten the existing regulation?
NO!!!
We should adopt a much simpler set of rules based on on a staunch philosophy: maintaining the real freedom of the market instead of allowing the ‘significant’ agents to bend the rules in their favor.

Regulation should just state what is unacceptable and not give recommendations, directives, indications, etc.