Posts Tagged ‘investment’


We’re all betting on the success of Obamacare to expand people’s access to decent, affordable healthcare. Apparently, for quite different reasons, so are investors [ht: sm].

“A new online broker, Motif Investing, is offering Obamacare’s friends and foes alike a chance to put their money where their mouth is. Co-founded by a former Microsoft executive, Hardeep Walia, and backed by Goldman Sachs and other investors, Motif allows customers to bet on narrowly tailored concepts.”

“Two of the hottest motifs right now are Obamacare and repeal Obamacare.”

“What’s most striking isn’t the performance of the two funds, but where investors are choosing to place their money … One is clearly more popular: … Motif investors have bet 45 times more money on Obamacare’s success than on its failure.”



In the end, about $1.1 billion of contemporary art were purchased during the two-day sale at Christie’s and Sotheby’s.*

I argued at the time that the auctions were a perfect “illustration of conspicuous consumption and the rise of inequality in the New Gilded Age.” Well, Georgina Adam seems to agree:

Driving their prices higher and higher are a group of ultra-wealthy buyers, who are indulging in a form of gladiatorial combat to win the most glittering trophies. Owning a major Bacon, Freud, Basquiat or Koons immediately sets them apart from other billionaires, giving bragging power as no other possession can. Displaying such a prize in their penthouses, luxury yachts or private museums is the equivalent of hanging a cheque on the wall, asserting that they can afford these multi-million-dollar baubles.

The pool of these mega-wealthy buyers is growing; they come from Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and India, and have entered the fray alongside the more established American and European collector base. The market is now so global that taste has become homogenised: billionaires across the world know who are the top artists and want the same recognisable things – pushing up prices even further. Two Asian bidders, for example, went after the Bacon at Christie’s, one pushing it right up to its final price. . .

But that’s not all:

There is no doubt that investment – and speculation – is also driving this market. With stock exchanges unpredictable and interest rates pathetic, the blue-chip artists are seen as a safe place to park money. As the prices rise, so does the incentive to buy more – and bidding up works by a name already in your collection increases their value even more, which might be really useful if you want to use it as collateral for a loan one day.

Is there financial manipulation going on as well? A small group of dealers and collectors are certainly encouraging this inflation, by giving so-called guarantees on works sent for sale. Under this system, they promise to buy a work of art at a secret price, so ensuring it will sell. If it goes over their bid, then they share in the extra money generated. So the work is sold even before it hits the auction block. The system has become a fearsome weapon in the auction houses’ armoury when they are fighting for consignments: many blame it also for inflating prices. Christie’s sale this month was underpinned by no less than 22 guarantees, some given by outside investors, others by the firm itself.

So at the upper reaches of the market, buying the top names is also a pretty safe bet. Today, the world’s richest people are worth multiple billions, so putting even a sliver of their fortune into art will hardly dent their bank balances – and buying art is a sure-fire entry ticket to what has become a very exclusive, billionaires’ playground.

*Dan Colen’s “Holy Shit” was auctioned at Sotheby’s for $341,000.


Q: Why are corporations sitting on mounting piles of cash? A: Because they can.

All kinds of folks (like Paul Krugman, Tyler Cowen, Noah Smith, and Timothy Taylor) are trying to figure out why U.S. corporations are holding their earnings in short-term marketable securities instead of, for example, investing them or distributing them to shareholders.

So, what’s going on? First, income is being redistributed from labor income to corporate profits.



Second, of these profits, the ratio of cash to net assets is at an all-time high.



Corporations are sitting on large piles of cash because, first, the amount of surplus they’re able to appropriate from workers has been increasing and, second, they’ve chosen to keep a large chunk of those profits in the form of cash until they have the opportunity to use them to make even more profits.

In other words, corporations are sitting on the profits because, within current economic arrangements, it’s their decision to do what they want with the enormous surplus in their hands. If they don’t want to accumulate capital—and thus create jobs for the millions of unemployed workers—or distribute it to shareholders—and thus enriching the top 1 percent even further—they don’t have to.

They’re doing what they’re doing because they can.


In the midst of the Second Great Depression, mainstream economists continue to heap scorn on one another concerning the relative merits of their “screw-the-unemployed” monetary-policy-has-no-effect and “hydraulic Keynesian” IS-LM-in-the-liquidity-trap models.

And they continue to ignore the “political-business-cycle” model of Michal Kalecki, which I wrote about a year ago, and which has been rediscovered by Steve Waldman.

Here is Kalecki describing with preternatural precision the so-called “Great Moderation”, and its limits:

The rate of interest or income tax [might be] reduced in a slump but not increased in the subsequent boom. In this case the boom will last longer, but it must end in a new slump: one reduction in the rate of interest or income tax does not, of course, eliminate the forces which cause cyclical fluctuations in a capitalist economy. In the new slump it will be necessary to reduce the rate of interest or income tax again and so on. Thus in the not too remote future, the rate of interest would have to be negative and income tax would have to be replaced by an income subsidy. The same would arise if it were attempted to maintain full employment by stimulating private investment: the rate of interest and income tax would have to be reduced continuously.

Dude wrote that in 1943.

What we’re watching right now is a race to the bottom, with both interest rates and income taxes, in an attempt to boost private consumption and investment. The result is that corporate profitability and income inequality continue to rise and, yet, full employment remains as elusive as ever.

*The graph shows the real (deflated) Federal Funds Rate, which is the interest rate at which banks trade with each other (usually overnight, on an uncollateralized basis) the balances they hold at the Federal Reserve. This is the rate Casey Mulligan got wrong in his initial post, and later had to correct.


I would have written “chart of the day, year, and probably decade” if it included data for stagnant real wages. Then, it would be the single most important chart of the Second Great Depression.

As it stands, it indicates that

since the Great Recession officially ended in June of 2009 GDP, equipment investment, and total corporate profits have rebounded, and are all now at their all-time highs (non-financial profits are near their historic high). The employment ratio, meanwhile, has only shrunk and is now at its lowest level since the early 1980s when women had not yet entered the workforce in significant numbers.

So current labor force woes are not because the economy isn’t growing, and they’re not because companies aren’t making money or spending money on equipment. They’re because these trends have become increasingly decoupled from hiring — from needing more human workers.

Our task is to explain these trends, not as the simple result of the “computer age” (as Andrew McAfee sees it) but as the consequence of the way capitalism is currently being reorganized—culturally, politically, and economically (including technology)—in the midst of the Second Great Depression.

That’s how capitalism works!

John Taylor (and, following him, Gregory Mankiw) presents the graph above as if they’ve made some brilliant new discovery: there’s a negative correlation between unemployment and private investment (such that, as unemployment declines private investment goes up—and, conversely, as private investment rises unemployment falls). They’ve discovered nothing but that, within capitalism, private investment is related—as a consequence and determinant (since they’ve measured a correlation, not a relationship of causation in either direction)—to how many jobs are created and people employed.

But, of course, it’s not an iron law. What they’d like to show is that higher capitalist profits lead to more investment and then to lower unemployment. The problem is, first, profits can rise while corporate investment remains stagnant (because of “animal spirits” and capitalists’ unwillingness to make new investments at a particular point in time, as against using profits to buy back equity or to engage in mergers and acquisitions) and, even if investment does go up, it’s quite possible not enough new jobs will be created to keep up with the growth of the labor force (if, for example, the capital-labor ratio rises).

And that’s a pretty good description of what’s happening with U.S. capitalism right now. But you won’t hear that from Professors Taylor and Mankiw, who prefer to stop at the lessons of Capitalism 101.


As it turns out, Taylor arbitrarily chose the initial year—and thus cherry-picked the data—to get the nice correlation he was looking for (and that Mankiw liked so much). According to Justin Wolfers, here’s what the scatter plot looks like if data going back to 1970 are included: