Harry Stotle’s Weblog

How’s the world today?

Cassandra’s Principle (part 3)

Posted by Harry Stotle on March 11, 2008

In the mind as well as writings of its historical fathers, free market economy was never supposed to mean wild and unregulated economy. Left to itself, any free market inevitably generates distortions, e.g. monopolies behaving like tumours which may very well kill it if left unchecked. It is therefore the duty of market authorities to constantly protect markets from self-generated diseases.

A well-known condition for a healthy open economy is for instance the speed and quality of the information circulating within markets. This principle is today often understood as meaning that prices will automatically incorporate all available information about underlying assets. This interpretation is wrong. Market information does not come as a fixed quantity and its quality is a goal to be proactively achieved, not a given or spontaneous feature. Sources of distortions are varied and many: for instance, some agents are too weak to leverage the good information they possess, while others draw their strength from distorting information.

It is indeed difficult to overstate the importance of protecting economic agents in complex markets against bad information. This is particularly true in an age of extended securitization. Series of complex operations can transform any financial product bearing on real assets into an unrecognizable object composed of intricate layers of derivatives. When the distance between the final buyer of a security and the underlying assets is very large, there is simply no way for the final buyer to verify the nature of assets actually purchased. At each step of the transformation process, waivers are signed making it impractical or impossible to exercise guarantees from operators who may have corrupted the product or its components.

The subprime mortgage tragedy is nothing but the most massive example ever seen of this problem. Market authorities and regulators were unwilling to prevent manufacturers and brokers of such trash securities to create and sell on the largest scale nominal obligations having the highest probability of default. A chain of intermediaries was able to multiply their poisonous effect by mixing them up with otherwise healthy securities, spreading both the disease and its opacity into what was precisely supposed to be the safest and most liquid part of portfolios.

The magnitude of the crisis can only be guessed based on unheard of injections of liquidity made by central banks visibly attempting to avoid a market meltdown, without any further consideration for what used to be their primary concern, i.e. inflation. The best informed institutions all simultaneously trying to get rid of their plagued assets, are calling all possible margins, also creating the conditions for a domino effect and credit crunch.

 At this stage the probable willingness of governments to bail out irresponsible lenders is the least of many systemic problems induced by a major lack of market regulation and surveillance. Good wealth (made from real contributions to the global economy, e.g. long term investments in emerging countries) is likely to be destroyed together with artificially made wealth (from junk assets), when stock markets eventually adjust to the situation. Stagflation, the cancer of economy, will then show its hideous figure.

One Response to “Cassandra’s Principle (part 3)”

  1. chicagoadam said

    Kudos again Harry. Free marketeers have chosen to discuss only one side of the coin. From the earliest thinkers on free markets to recent intelligentsia in such places as the University of Chicago (the Monetarists and Milton Freedman followers) it has been recognized that free markets lead to wild excesses.

    Discussing this in detail in “Free to Choose” even Freedman said that pharmacy manufacturers will release drugs long before they are proven effictive and side effects are documented. As people waste money, or die, the market will eventually “learn” what is good from what is not leading long-term to the best products being available. What of those who die in the process? Just part of free market learning to the theorists.

    The other popular economic term is “temporary economic dislocation.” Free marketeers forget to point out that as learning occurs the excesses and errors lead to overpricing assets and overusing leverage – such as when people mortgaged their homes to buy tulip bulbs, and Danish bankers loaned money on tulip bulbs only because they were expected to go up. When the price crashed, everyone lost. So what of those that lost fortunes, homes and jobs – they were “temporarily economically dislocated.”

    Even the theorists pointed out that the only way to control the extremes is to provide a countervailing force to “free markets” before excess is reached. And that force comes from regulators. Only regulators can stop meat providers from cutting sanitation costs so low that many die before meat consumption declines. And regulators should have stepped in and stopped the incredibly lenient lending done in the name of finding short-term profitable loans – for short-term profits at new home builders.

    Today’s free marketeers are politicians. That’s too bad, because everyone knows merchants have no incentive to regulate themselves. Until the politicians achieve balance, and recognize their social requirement, all of society will suffer from these rather avoidable problems.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.