Kiva: Individual microlending

When looking at Questionable Content (it is a webcomic – I’m addicted to watching the guy develop his drawing style!) I saw a link for a site named Kiva. To explain what this is I will leave it up to the Kiva about page.

Kiva is the world’s first person-to-person micro-lending website, empowering individuals to lend directly to unique entrepreneurs in the developing world.

It is so incredibly cool – it lets you loan money to individual entreprenuers in developing countries. Instead of giving money to a charity as a black hole you are giving money directly to someone who you believe will make good use of it – furthermore, you are pretty likely to get you money back!

This is a great way to incentivise capital transfers and charity – seriously cool.

Is anyone keen to join a TVHE Kiva group – I’m sure I can rope at least the other authors into it 😉

What is up with petrol prices?

The cost of a barrel of oil is down to $35US and the exchange rate is loitering around $1NZ=$0.52US. Why is fuel at $1.63? A rough and ready look at the numbers suggests approximately $1.40 to me – although with a big error band (Note: less than 20c though).

The rumours I’ve heard are:

  1. Refiners are increasing margins (how?)
  2. Tacit collusion between retailers (then why do margins appear to be average in the MED data?)
  3. Premium based on exchange rate and oil price uncertainty which is elevated (but is it any worse than a few months ago?)
  4. Retailers have put themselves in at fixed oil/exchange rate contracts that are at worse rates than current spot prices (when did they start doing this?)

So, does anyone have any knowledge or suggestions that they would like to share with me 🙂

Update:  Paul Walker at Anti-Dismal discusses the role of consumer search in the adjustment of petrol prices.

Cheese prices: Competition issues or random bleating?

This article from David Hargreaves on cheese prices got me thinking. He is saying that domestically produced food prices are too high.

At first I completely disagreed with, especially when he says things like:

There’s no doubt the excuse will come out about how much lower the Kiwi dollar is this year. And clearly that is a valid excuse when you talk about imported goods. But what about the goods produced at home?

This is a misnomer – as a lower exchange rate increases the return New Zealand exporters can get overseas, increasing the price New Zealander’s need to pay for a product.

However, there is another issue regarding the price of diary products in New Zealand that is important – and where the bleating about the price might make some sense: Collusion in the supermarket industry. If supermarkets are colluding on the price of diary products, the price would be higher than the socially optimal level. In this case there might be a competitive issue with supermarkets.

Do you think there is a competition issue – or do you think this is a whole lot of bleating about nothing?

Unfortunate predictions?

David Farrar links to an article from 1 year ago – where economists were rather positive about the outlook for New Zealand. I was the same – I thought we would be out of a drought induced recession by September 2008.

But things happened that we couldn’t foresee. Lehman brother’s collapse was the issue that really turned things around.

However, even if this hadn’t happened the idea of the recession ending in September would have been wrong – as the impact of falling house prices on consumer spending was stronger than I had expected.

As MyNameIsJack said in the comments on Kiwiblog:

Economists very rarely make accurate predictions, in fact I would lay money on more meteorologists being right next week than economists. Economists are good at explaining why after the event, lousy at explaining what and when in advance.

Economists don’t have perfect foresight, but when we have the data we are pretty good at describing what has happened – sometimes 😛

Arnold Kling: Economics>Macro

Arnold Kling is right that Macroeconomics is only a subset of economics – and as a result a failure in macroeconomics does not damn the whole economic method.

However, I think he might be giving macroeconomists a bit of a free ride here.  Think of it this way – microeconomics has evolved to generalise hypotheses and make them testable.  Microeconomists have also been careful to posit counter-factuals to their cases and discover necessary and sufficient conditions for their results.  The strength of microeconomics has lead to a burgeoning industry in “Freakonomics” style books.

Macroeconomic theory has followed micro, attempting to solve general economic situations from “individual rationality” and even applying some game theory.  However, as soon as the business hit the fan – they dumped their attempts at a framework and rushed back to arbitrary debates on the size of the “multiplier”.

Recent debates have illustrated that macroeconomists are really just “play economists” – stating that they believe in scarcity, and want to study the allocation of resources, but don’t want to put in the hard yards that microeconomists have.  Where is the general equilibrium theory?  Where is the study of multiple, heterogeneous, agents interacting in a dynamic system with poor information and imperfect institutional arrangements.  Do macroeconomists actually have a general framework (based on methodological individualism) that they agree on – like microeconomists do.

Some people posit that the separation between micro and macro is like the difference between general relativity and quantum physics – these people would have us believe that there is only one step left between reconciling these divergent disciplines and having a “general theory”.  However, doesn’t that give macro a little more credit than it deserves?

Note:  This post is supposed to be contentious – I would like to hear how macroeconomists would go about answering the claims I’ve made in this post 🙂

The one thing broken by this crisis …

Update: Clive Crook has a better discussion of what is going on than I do (original here) – and how irritating it is – than I do. I’m embarrassed to say that I’m a few days behind on my blog reading, so I only saw this after writing my post 🙁

Even if nothing else is broken in the economy, there is one thing that has been irrevocably smashed.

My belief that academic economists in the US would be able to use the economic tools developed over the last 200 years to objectively frame issues during a crisis – and then transparently discuss the different value judgments they hold in order to inform policy.

Compare this belief I held to reality – where we have had ridiculously partisan arguments, where intelligent economists have just told everyone that other intelligent economists are morons (eg), and that their own conception of what is going on IS the truth (something economists don’t have the ability or knowledge to say).

Economists have a framework stemming from methodological individualism – a framework that frames problems. Even though “describing” and “predicting” are too value laden for us, my own view is that good economists will try to build inside this framework first before adding value judgments to get the “description” and “prescription”. Instead all we have seen is random conjecture based on ideological fervour. Saying that this disappoints me would be an understatement …