Quantcast

What is Ex-Im? What does it do? Is it, on net, a good deal for the U.S.?

Here is my attempt to answer these questions in five minutes. Many thanks to the multi-talented Charles Blatz for making this possible.

Public sector pensions are subject to a variety of accounting and actuarial manipulations. A lot of the reason for the lack of funding discipline, I’ve argued, is in part due to the mal-incentives in the public sector to fully fund employee pensions. Discount rate assumptions, asset smoothing, and altering amortization schedules are three of the most common kinds of maneuvers used to make pension payments easier on the sponsor. Short-sighted politicians don’t always want to pay the full bill when they can use revenues for other things. The problem with these tactics is they can also lead to underfunding, basically kicking the can down the road.

Private sector plans are not immune to government-sanctioned accounting subterfuges. Last week’s Wall Street Journal reported on just one such technique.

President Obama recently signed a $10.8 billion transportation bill that also included a provision to allow companies to continue “pension smoothing” for 10 more months. The result is to lower the companies’ contribution to employee pension plans. It’s also a federal revenue device. Since pension payments are tax-deductible these companies will have slightly higher tax bills this year. Those taxes go to help fund federal transportation per the recently signed legislation.

A little bit less is put into private-sector pension plans and a little bit more is put into the government’s coffers.

The WSJ notes that the top 100 private pension plans could see their $44 billion required pension contribution reduced by 30 percent, adding an estimated $2.3 billion deficit to private pension plans. It’s poor discipline considering the variable condition of a lot of private plans which are backed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).

My colleague Jason Fichtner and I drew attention to these subtle accounting dodges triggered by last year’s transportation bill. In “Paving over Pension Liabilities,” we call out discount rate manipulation used by corporations and encouraged by Congress that basically has the same effect: redirecting a portion of the companies’ reduced pension payments to the federal government in order to finance transportation spending. The small reduction in corporate plans’ discount rate translates into an extra $8.8 billion for the federal government over 10 years.

The AFL-CIO isn’t worried about these gimmicks. They argue that pension smoothing makes life easier for the sponsor, and thus makes offering a defined benefit plan, “less daunting.” But such, “politically-opportunistic accounting,” (a term defined by economist Odd Stalebrink) is basically a means of covering up reality, like only paying a portion of your credit card bill or mortgage. Do it long enough and you’ll eventually forget how much those shopping sprees and your house actually cost.

To hear defenders of Ex-Im talk, you’d think that export subsidies are ALL upside and no downside. Economic theory suggests otherwise.

Clearly, some benefit from export subsidies. The most-obvious beneficiaries are the 10 or so U.S. manufacturers whose products capture the bulk of Ex-Im’s privileges (if they didn’t benefit, their “all hands on deck” public relations campaign to save the bank wouldn’t make a lot of sense).

Foreign purchasers who receive loans and loan guarantees from the bank in exchange for buying these products also clearly benefit.

The least-conspicuous beneficiaries are the private banks who finance these deals and get to offload up to 85 percent of the risk on to U.S. taxpayers. But they too clearly benefit.

Those are the upsides. But as economists are wont to say, “there is no such thing as a free lunch.”

Behind each of these beneficiaries is someone left holding the bag: there are taxpayers who bear risks that private lenders are unable or unwilling to bear. There are consumers who must pay higher prices for products that are made artificially expensive by Ex-Im subsidies. And there are other borrowers who lose out on capital because they aren’t lucky enough to have the full faith and credit of the U.S. taxpayer standing behind them.

One might be tempted to think that gains of the winners roughly offset the losses of the losers. But basic economic analysis suggests that the losses exceed the gains.

A few simple diagrams illustrate this point.

First consider any subsidy of a private (that is, excludable and rivalrous) good. Perhaps the most relevant example is a subsidy to private lenders. This is shown in the familiar supply and demand diagram shown below. The quantity of loanable funds is displayed along the horizontal axis and the price of a loan—the interest rate—is shown on the vertical axis.

People want loans to invest in their projects. We call this the “Demand for Investment.” It is shown as the blue, downward-sloping line. It is downward sloping because there are diminishing marginal returns to investment and because if you have to pay a higher interest rate, you will borrow less.

Other people have money to lend. We call this the “Supply of Savings.” It is depicted below as the solid red, upward-sloping line. It is upward sloping because there are increasing opportunity costs to lending out money and lenders must be enticed with higher and higher interest rates to lend more and more money.

The key to understanding this diagram—and this is a point that non-economists tend to find unintuitive—is that there is an optimal quantity of loans and it is not infinity. There is some point beyond which the marginal opportunity cost of further lending exceeds the marginal expected benefit from these investments.

Now consider what happens when the government guarantees the loans. Knowing that taxpayers will cover up to 85 percent of their losses, rational lenders will be willing to supply any given quantity of loans at a lower interest rate. Thus, the supply of savings shifts to the lower, dashed red line. But just because loan guarantees shield lenders from the true opportunity cost of these funds, it does not mean that the true opportunity cost goes away. In this case, taxpayers wear the risk. (For a dated but lucid explanation of the true opportunity cost associated with Ex-Im, see this Minneapolis Fed paper).

Society as a whole is made poorer because scarce resources are redirected from higher-valued uses toward lower-valued uses. In other words, those who lose end up losing more than the winners win. Economists call this “dead weight loss” (DWL). It is represented by the red triangle in the diagram below (click to enlarge).

DWL of a Subsidy

So far, this is the basic economic theory of a subsidy. But economists have developed more-specific models to understand subsidies in the context of international trade.

To get a handle on this, check out some videos by Professor Michael Moore of George Washington University. If international trade diagrams are new to you, I’d recommend looking at these diagrams before watching his videos. Then watch Professor Moore’s excellent illustration of an export subsidy in a small country, followed by the slightly more-complicated—but more relevant—case of export subsidies in a large country.

Small country case:

Large country case:

This is the basic case for free trade and it is widely accepted by economists. Some astute readers may know that there are some interesting theoretical exceptions to this rule. These exceptions derive from what are known as “strategic trade” models. They posit that in some situations—such as oligopolistic industries—governments can theoretically manage to use subsidies to make domestic firms win more than domestic consumers lose. The world is still poorer, but domestic winnings outweigh domestic losses.

These models are worth understanding. But the truth is they have not—and should not—undermine the basic economic case for free trade. The best exposition of this point is a classic piece by Paul Krugman called “Is Free Trade Passe?” In it, Krugman carefully walks the reader through the logic of these models. He then notes, quite rightly, that:

The normative conclusion that this justifies a greater degree of government intervention in trade, however, has met with sharp criticism and opposition—not least from some of the creators of the new theory themselves.

Krugman then ticks through the reasons why free trade should still be the reasonable rule of thumb. For one thing, since the strategic trade models seem to only work in oligopolistic industries, policy makers would need to know exactly how oligopolists will respond to these subsidies and the fact is “economists do not have reliable models of how oligopolists behave.” Then there is the problem of entry. Even if a government does solve the empirical problem of anticipating and accurately responding to oligopolists, it “may still not be able to raise national income if the benefits of its intervention are dissipated by entry of additional firms.”

Krugman’s final two critiques are fascinating because they are precisely the sorts of concerns a George Mason economist might raise. First, there is what Hayek might call the information problem:

[T]o pursue a strategic trade policy successfully, a government must not only understand the effects of its policy on the targeted industry, which is difficult enough, but must also understand all the industries in the economy well enough that it can judge that an advantage gained here is worth advantage lost elsewhere. Therefore, the information burden is increased even further.

And finally, there is the public choice problem. At the international level, “In many (though not all) cases, a trade war between two interventionist governments will leave both countries worse off than if a hands-off approach were adopted by both.” And at the domestic level:

Governments do not necessarily act in the national interest, especially when making detailed microeconomic interventions. Instead, they are influenced by interest group pressures. The kinds of interventions that new trade theory suggests can raise national income will typically raise the welfare of small, fortunate groups by large amounts, while imposing costs on larger, more diffuse groups. The result, as with any microeconomic policy, can easily be that excessive or misguided intervention takes place because the beneficiaries have more knowledge and influence than the losers.

To this, one could add a host of problems that arise when governments privilege particular firms or industries.

Which (finally) brings me to the bottom line: the economic case remains strong that export subsidies to domestic firms like Boeing and GE end up costing American consumers, borrowers, and taxpayers more than they end up benefiting the privileged firms.

The Great Recession of 2008 “stress tested” many policies and institutions including the effectiveness of laws meant to handle municipal fiscal crises. In new Mercatus research professor Eric Scorsone of Michigan State University assess the range and type of legal remedies offered by states to help local governments in financial trouble.

“Municipal Fiscal Emergency Laws: Background and Guide to State-Based Approaches,” begins with some brief context. Most municipal fiscal laws trace their lineage through the 1975 New York City fiscal crisis, the Great Depression and the 19th century railroad bankruptcies. Writing in 1935, attorney Edward Dimock articulated three pieces to addressing municipal insolvency:  1) oversight of the municipality’s financial management 2) stop individual creditors from undermining the distressed entity and 3) put together a plan of adjustment for meeting the creditor’s needs.

These general parameters are at work in state laws today. The details vary. Some states are passive and others much more “hands-on” in dealing with local financial troubles. Scorsone documents these approach with a focus on the “triggers” states use to identify a crisis, the remedies permitted (e.g. can a municipality amend a collective bargaining agreement?), and the exit strategies offered. Maine has the most “Spartan” of fiscal triggers. A Maine municipality that fails to redistribute state taxes, or misses a bond payment triggers the state government’s attention. Michigan also has very strong municipal distress laws which create, “almost a form of quasi-bankruptcy” allowing the state emergency manager to break existing contracts. Texas and Tennessee, by contrast, are relatively hands-off.

How well these laws work is a live issue in many places, including Pennsylvania. In 1987 the state passed Act 47 to identify distressed municipalities. While Act 47 appears to have diagnosed dozens of faltering local governments, the law has proven ineffective in helping municipalities right course. Many cities have remained on the distressed list for 20 years. Recent legislation proposes to allow a municipality that can’t “exit Act 47″ the option of disincorporating. Is there a middle ground? As the PA State Association of Town Supervisors put it, “If we can’t address the labor issues, if we can’t address the mandates, if we can’t address the tax exempt properties, we go nowhere.”

Municipalities end up in distress for a complex set of reasons: self-inflicted policy and governance failures, uncontrollable social and economic shifts, and external shocks. Unwinding the effects of decades of interlocking problems isn’t a neat and easy undertaking. The purpose of the paper isn’t to evaluate the effectiveness various approaches to helping municipalities out of distress, it is instead a much-needed guide to help navigate and compare the states’ legal frameworks in which municipal leaders make decisions.

 

 

 

Would cutting Ex-Im’s ties to the U.S. Treasury amount to “unilateral disarmament”?

July 15, 2014

Before winning this year’s World Cup championship, Germany faced a dilemma during its qualifying match against the United States. Both teams could ensure their advancement in the tournament by colluding to do nothing. If they tied, both would advance. If one of them won, the other might not advance. However, neither could ensure that the […]

Read the full post →

Are Uber and Lyft the next jitney?

July 12, 2014

This July marks the 100-year anniversary of the American Jitney. An early incarnation of Uber and Lyft, it was an enormously popular service that was at one point found in 175 U.S. cities. Haven’t heard of it? That’s because most major cities quickly regulated it out of existence. My colleague, Michael Farren, and I explore […]

Read the full post →

When new ideas meet old regulatory solutions

July 7, 2014

With the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission recently issuing cease-and-desist letters to ride-share services Lyft and Uber, Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto invoked the Age of Reptiles to describe the decision: “Technologies like ride-sharing evolve with the times and state regulators must, too,” said Mayor Peduto in a prepared statement. “While the commission may wish for Pennsylvania […]

Read the full post →

Corporate Bailouts: the REAL Trickle-down Economics

July 7, 2014

Advocates of corporate welfare often claim that when governments privilege a handful of firms, the rest of the economy somehow benefits. This is how the Bush Administration sold the bank bailouts. It’s how the current Administration sold the auto bailouts. And it’s how the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is trying to sell the Export-Import Bank. […]

Read the full post →

Some private sector pensions also face funding trouble

July 2, 2014

A new report by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp (PBGC) warns that while the market recovery has helped many multiemployer pension plans improve their funding there remain some plans that,”will not be able to raise contributions or reduce benefits sufficiently to avoid insolvency,” affecting between 1 and 1.5 million of ten million enrollees. Multiemployer plans are […]

Read the full post →

Delaware Senate votes to bail out three casinos

June 26, 2014

Delaware’s state senate has voted to redirect $10 billion in economic development funding to bail out three gambling casinos. The measure now goes to the House. Two reasons the casinos are failing: increased competition from Maryland and Pennsylvania and having to share a large chuck of revenue with the state. Lawmakers admit the bailout is only a […]

Read the full post →