Category Archives: Freakonomics

Freakonomics – Own land

[The following article is part of a larger commentary, available here.]

The key investment in the “green revolution” may be land. Wind farms require land, solar panels require land, bio-fuels grow on land, etc. Let’s inspect one specific use: using solar panels to generate hydrogen for fuel-cell cars:

As of last year, 700 sqft of Honda’s roadside solar generators produce enough hydrogen in one week to fuel one car for 175 miles. Clearly this is not enough, but it could be if you use more land.

(700 sqft of solar arrays) x (7 days) = 175 miles

equivalent to

(1 acre of solar arrays) x (1 day) = 1556 miles

If we assume that cars get about 25 mi/gallon of gas, then each acre produces the equivalent of about 62 gallons of gas per day. If gas costs $3/gallon, and hydrogen is priced to drive the same distance for the same cost, then each acre produces about $187/day in sales. That’s $68,140/year. Maintaining solar arrays is pretty cheap, let’s assume $5000/year/acre. If we discount the implied cash flow using a real rate of 5%, the value is $1.26m/acre. Obviously, an acre of solar arrays is expensive. Today, the cost would be about $1.5m, and exceed the net present value. But not for long!

Technology is progressing at a rapid rate. Today’s 6% efficiency may improve to 30% within 10 years. If the efficiency rises to 30%, the negative net present value of producing hydrogen turns positive. Very positive: $5 million per acre.

And don’t forget, for added upside you can install a wind farm over your solar arrays, and produce with both. Own some land.

National Infrastructure Administration

A new federal agency “National Infrastructure Administration” (“NIA”) should be formed to manage a work rotation under the Army Corps of Engineers, building national infrastructure projects.

Rotations would last 6 months at a time, and would be available to any US citizen. Pay would consist of minimum wage, minimal benefits, and possibly room and board. When not in combat, Army personnel would also serve in these rotations.

Unemployment would no longer be an issue. Anyone who wanted to work could serve a rotation with the NIA. Training and experience would be valuable alongside members of the Army, and under direction of the Army Corps of Engineers. Employers would likely respect NIA experience.

The economy would grow faster, with broad prosperity. The electrical grid, 650,000 miles of roads, 78,000 bridges, 125,000 buildings, 700 miles of airport runways, and major new dams and waterways that resulted from New Deal programs are part of why economic growth was capable of such strength into and through WWII. As Americans took advantage of better energy and transportation, prosperity spread rapidly.

View and comment at SinceSlicedBread

The Impact of the Investment Industry on the Economy

The rise of the investment industry drives up competition, drives down prices, and ends up subsidising consumer spending.

As capital has become more available, fixed costs have become less important in competitive industries. Overcoming a billion-dollar fixed cost to achieve gross margins above the market ROI has become commonplace. As investments lead to market expansion for companies, competition becomes more intense. The impact is even stronger with smaller fixed-cost businesses. As competition increases, profit margins fall and consumers are the ultimate beneficiaries.

When profit margins fall in an industry, companies may not achieve the ROI they expected, and investments grow increasing downside risk.

In this speculative possible state of the world, investors might expect:

  • more downside risk from the equity markets,

    (underweight equities relative to other asset classes)

  • more default risk from the corporate bond markets,

    (underweight credit risk relative to high credit quality)

  • more downward pricing pressure (aka lower inflation),

    (overweight bonds relative to other asset classes)

  • higher profit margins available to larger-cap companies

    (overweight large cap relative to small cap)

I left out another impact: as competition lowers prices for consumers, consumption goes up even if spending stays the same. More consumption means more demand for commodities. Supplies of commodities may grow, too, if investment improves mining, agriculture, etc. If demand growth exceeds supply growth, expect commodity prices to rise.

The Myth of Negative Sentiment

Today’s article in Barrons: “The Myth of Negative Sentiment” took the position that negative sentiment in the investor community is a myth, and that the media is unnecessarily sugarcoating economic problems.

I think the article missed the point.

The sugarcoating is not for the investor crowd, it is for everyone else. Investors stand to do well as we move toward an “ownership society“, but the non-investor class is disenfranchised and falling further behind. I’m talking about the concentration of wealth and the distribution of consumption.

The article talks about how investors are heavily invested in equities rather than cash, and how this is a signal of investor optimism. This is true; it is because dividend and capital gains rates have been cut in half (or more) and interest rates on cash accounts are almost zero. Why hold cash when the yield curve is steep and tax rates are so favorable? After-tax investment returns look very promising.

But if you live paycheck-to-paycheck (Barron’s readers might not have any contact with these people…) then your prospects are grim. In the past, debtors could count on inflation to depreciate their past sins. But these days, deflation threatens to put them deeper in debt while giving the wealthy more buying power. Meanwhile social services are being cut and the lions share of tax breaks are going to people making capital gains and receiving dividend income. For them, the whole country is becomming a company town.

The issue is not negative sentiment on the part of investors, but rather social depression. And that is no myth.

Outside-the-box Economics

The US, Japan, and other countries have converging economic policies which are not optimally stimulating growth within their national economies. The following is an attempt to eliminate inefficiencies and improve incentives: a discussion point, not a recommendation.

Eliminate all taxes, and print the money that the government needs to handle it’s budget. Tax would be implied by the inflation of the currency. The US government’s annual budget of $1.864 Trillion in 2001 represents a small portion of the total US assets and capital. I don’t know the total number–I’m not sure if anyone does–however, GDP in the US is $9.8 Trillion. With a total US currency capital base of only twice GDP, the marginal increase in money supply would be about 10%. M3 (The broadest indicator of money supply, including bank deposits and money-market mutual funds) rose by almost 14%, year-on-year, to the end of October, 2001, meaning that the US gov’t annual budget would add another 42% to the increase in M3. Meanwhile inflation is about 3%. If we increase the inflation rate by the same factor, we get 4.25% inflation. And no taxes.

The stimulation of the economy would be furious for a few reasons: 1) Elimination of taxes increases disposable income by 50% (assuming 33% average tax, which is probably low), 2) an increase in inflationary expectations creates an increase in spending, and 3) enormous increases in efficiency.

In terms of efficiency, the entire IRS and tax calculation and collection processes would be unnecessary. In addition, the legal complication surrounding estate taxes, loopholes, alternative minimum taxes (AMT), purchase basis tracking, tax avoidance, foreign tax safe-havens, audits, etc. would become unnecessary.

Sales taxes, including targeted taxes to discourage some goods or behaviors could (and should) still be used.

Currently, there is no tax on wealth. Instead, taxes are paid for income, sales, and other movements of capital. The current mechanism creates an inefficiency in a huge range of transactions. Inflation, on the other hand, is an effective tax on wealth, and in doing so, eliminates the inefficiency on transactions while discouraging hoarding and encouraging investment and spending.

The base of wealth is so much higher than the base of incomes that taxing wealth can bring in the same revenues with a much lower tax rate. Closing all the loopholes and eliminating inefficiencies should also boost tax revenues substantially.