Detailed Abstractions

DA has several posts on the reasons behind the economic collapse as well as financial reform itself.  &, as is usual, the government is using the “crisis” as a power grab.

@ MarketWatch (here):

…The comprehensive bill is an attempt fix holes in the regulatory system that helped lead to the Great Recession….

At this point, Republicans are blocking a Senate vote:

…Among the sticking points are provisions that would give regulators the authority to guarantee debts of large financial institutions, provisions that would give the Federal Reserve authority to lend money to banks in an emergency, and a proposal to deal with failing systemically important companies by setting up a “burial insurance” fund….

Now I’m no fan of the Republicans and understand full well some of their opposition is about politics and not the actual bill, but I’m pleased with this block. First, guaranteeing debts of larger financial institutions does the exact opposite of the administration’s consistently stated goal – end too big too fail. @ MarketWatch (here):

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — The U.S. must pass legislation to reform the financial system , in particular to make sure that no bank operates on the assumption that it will be bailed out by taxpayers, Lawrence Summers, the director of the National Economic Council and President Barack Obama’s top economic adviser, said Sunday.

“We must end too big to fail,” he said on Face the Nation. “There is no one associated with the White House who believes “too big to fail” is acceptable, or that it’s acceptable for financial institutions to rely on a bailout.”…

@ Daily Finance (here):

Too big to fail? This isn’t a designation that the Obama administration wants to exist any more….

& the President himself via YouTube (here). Insuring potential debts for very large institutions which might fail, is insuring too big to fail continues.  In this particular case, the logic is obvious and inescapable.  If an institution becomes very large, then the government designates them as whatever, which in turn tells the investing public that that institution is backed by the federal government. This will not only give larger banks an advantage (would you rather invest in a business you know won’t be allowed to fail or one that you know will be allowed to fail?), making it more difficult for smaller banks to compete, but actually incents banks to become big enough to get the designation itself. But why stop there? @ MarketWatch (here):

…The legislation would set up a new agency to protect consumers from lending abuses. It would also give the government the authority to wind down big financial institutions, and expand oversight of the derivatives market….

Soooooo… the government, which continued to support Fannie and Freddie after being told by numerous groups the risk they posed, the government which regulated ratings agencies who gave triple-A bond ratings to MBSs, the government who’s economic predictions have failed again and again needs yet another agency from which to fail?  Maybe it’s just me, but I thought the justice system was supposed to protect consumers… But that’s simply not enough power either.  They also need more control over the derivatives market.  You know, the market which had nothing to do with the economic crisis.  They also plan to more heavily regulate pay-day loan companies.  Not sure what they had to do with the crisis either… I think Alan Reynolds @ Cato stated it very well (here):

The Obama administration thinks it has discovered the perfect formula to cram legislation through in a hurry:  Demonize some prominent firm within an industry you plan to redesign, and then pass a law that has nothing to do with the accusation against the demonized firm.  They did this with health insurance and now they’re trying it with finance.

However it’s said and whatever is said, this legislation will do the opposite of its theoretical intent.  It will not protect anyone, but  hurt all consumers.  By adding more and more layers of of regulations, the barriers to entry are increased for everyone, hurting competition, and raising prices for the end consumer.

Over @ HBR Blogs, Jeff Goldsmith asks the following question: Has the U.S. Health Technology Sector Run Out of Gas?.  Looking historically, he notes the amazing progress since the 1970s, but a decline in that growth since 2000:

…Technological innovation — in pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical devices including imaging, and enterprise IT — exploded in the thirty year period 1970 to 2000…

…Then about a decade ago, the US medical technology sector entered a prolonged innovation drought. In pharmaceuticals, new drug introductions declined by almost two thirds, while drugs patented in the latter part of the boom period lost protection, this despite a near tripling in R+D outlays. (New drug introductions rebounded modestly in 2008 and 2009, but still haven’t regained their 2004 levels)….

He goes further to note that this dip in activity wasn’t just about new drugs:

…The drought wasn’t confined to pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. Imaging, a dazzling success story for three decades, has seemingly run out of gas. Imaging equipment sales collapsed precipitously in the US, by roughly 40%…

…Enterprise clinical information technology seems to have hit a similar flat spot. The major commercial IT platforms for hospitals and health systems are more than a decade old.

& all of that makes complete sense based upon what we know about the last couple of decades.

Since the mid-1990s (well really, since the 1960′s), we have increased regulation on the medical industry on a constant basis.  From minor changes in who qualifies, to new regulations such as HIPA, to very large new regulatory pressures such as the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, resulting in an explosive growth in government expenditures of health care:

There have also been additional pressures.  Increases in financial and IT regulations through SOX and other legislation have increased companies’ weariness to put themselves at risk and increased costs of doing business.

These pressures in increasing the costs of doing business, combined with the federal government expenditures crowding out private spending, has resulted in higher costs for businesses and therefore consumers as well.  The new heath care and financial overhaul bills will continue this pressure.

The big cost however is what the author notes:  the lack on innovation.  When the government seeks to consistently erect new and more costly barriers to entry, competition will naturally decline.  The correlation to that behavior is that costs will grow more rapidly as we know competition in the long-term generates downward pressure on prices.

As we see now – prices are increasing, availability is decreasing, as the government decreases the availability of future competition in industries the government tightly controls such as health care.  Conversely with those industries with fewer barriers to entry have downward pressure on prices, such as cell phone or internet providers.

While I consider this failure of centralized control as a major factor, Mr. Goldsmith posits three contributing factors, risk aversion from management, size and increasing bureaucracy, and the fact that we are losing out globally for scientific talent:

1. Firms that used to be run by scientists and engineers are now run by attorneys and marketing executives….
2. Their ability to foster innovation has succumbed to a bureaucratic management culture….
3. Bright young foreign science and technology graduates are returning to India or China instead of staying here and creating new products or companies….

While I agree with all of these things, I think reasons 1 & 3 can be combined easily to a more basic point about government interference and centralized control.  Indeed they are symptoms of the problem and not necessarily the disease.

Having said that, I think it’s also important to note that reason number 2 exists due to the same thinking reasons 1 & 3 do – the belief that centralized control is a nominal good (DA post on business trends here).

The author seems remiss in not making the connection, even if he did eloquently, maybe unwittingly, stumble across it when writing about global competition:

…If they have more freedom to innovate in their home countries, that’s where they’ll go….

For as long as we continue to discuss symptoms and not the actual disease, we will continue to miss the point.