"While local economies may experience significant price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity."

Alan Greenspan, October 2004, playing down the threat of a national housing bubble.

Economic forecasts is certainly more of an art than a science. Put 10 economists in a room and the joke goes, you will get 11 different answers; that's certainly true for forecasting. Economists often have difficulty calculating existing statistics, let alone predicting future economic variables. For example, examining current account deficits suggest that the World has a current account deficit with itself. As we have not yet started trading with other planets, this must reflect statistical inaccuracies. When it comes to making forecasts, economists are even more likely to be wrong; but, just because some economic forecasts are wrong, doesn't mean we should ignore this branch of economics. It just means trying to make a better job of it.

What Determines the Success of Economic Forecasts?

Current Data. Firstly, it is important to be aware of the correct current data. If we cannot be aware of how the economy is doing at the moment, it is very difficult to determine future trends. One difficult factor in predicting oil prices is that statistics on current oil stocks are hard to ascertain. For example, Saudi Arabia does not publish a full picture of its available reserves. There is much debate about the real rate of inflation see:

Looking at All Variables. It is easy for people to look at only one aspect of an issue and come to a certain conclusion based on that. For example, in 2006, the ratio of mortgage payments to income was relatively low, compared to historical trends. This meant many felt house prices were not overvalued and due to fall. However, looking at house prices to earnings painted a different picture. House price to earnings had reached an all time high making it difficult for people to afford to purchase a house; when interest rates increased, the whole picture quickly changed.

Understanding how Quickly Things Can Change. The problem with making economic forecasts is assuming that some variables will stay put. For example, the ratio of mortgage payments to income in the years 2004-06 was low, however, this was helped by record low interest rates. As soon as interest rates increased this cause the situation to change and mortgage payments rose changing the situation of the US Housing market.

The Unexpected. This is the difficult thing to include in the equation. For example, oil price rises are notoriously difficult to predict, especially when sparked by political issues. The continued rise in oil has definitely led to higher inflation than most people would have predicted 12 months ago.

Hidden Statistics. Banks and financial institutions are adept at hiding the true extent of their assets and liabilities. For example, the credit crunch took some by surprise because many were simply not aware of the risks that many subprime mortgage companies had exposed themselves to. Nor were most people aware of how mortgage debt had been sold around the global financial system. There are more than one examples, of companies who share price collapses as investors suddenly realise the true balance sheet.

Hysteresis. It is often said, that if you listen to the predictions of top economists, you would actually get a more accurate forecast by just using last years statistic. For example, if inflation was 3% last year; there's a good chance it will be close to 3% again. Of course, economic statistics change from year to year; however, it is argued that using last years figure is often more accurate than choosing a forecast from others.

Economic Fundamentals Do Influence Forecasts. Despite all the difficulties careful analysis of economic fundamentals can help create good forecasts. If you look at the American economy a few years ago. There were many factors putting a downward pressure on the dollar

• Large current account deficit. 6.7% of GDP
• High levels of personal debt
• Low interest rates
• Growing uncertainty with economy.

All these made it easier to predict the dollar was likely to fall.

• How Reliable are Economic forecasts?
• Economic Forecasts.org

With food prices continuing to rise, the OECD launched a report to examine why prices are rising.
One of their key findings was the increased use of crops for biofuels pushing up prices. This growth in biofuels is often promoted by government subsidies, especially in the US.

The report discounted:

• the importance of rising demand from China and India
• and the role of speculation

Report by Stefan Tangermann OECD on why food prices are rising

Related:

• The Real economic crisis - Food
• How to deal with food shortages

One of my readers wrote to me saying he enjoyed the site, but, couldn't help notice the influence of Keynesianism on my essays.

In a way he is right, in many essays I tend to be sympathetic towards a Keynesian / interventionist viewpoint. When teaching A Level economics we discuss different models of the economy. In particular we show the Keyensian vs Monetarist view of the Long Run Aggregate Supply. This is very simplified view

Keynesian view of Long Run Aggregate Supply

The Keynesian view is that output can be below full capacity for a long time. In a recession, labour markets don't clear and we are left with demand deficient unemployment. Keynes' general theory of money was written in the 1930s, when there was ample evidence of the failing of the free market to achieve full employment. Faced with this mass unemployment, Keynes advocated government intervention (higher government spending) to stimulate a depressed economy.

Monetarist View of Long Run Aggregate Supply


The monetarist view is a development of the classical theory. To simplify the model, Monetarists believe the Long Run Aggregate Supply Curve is inelastic. If AD rises faster than long run aggregate supply, there may be a temporary rise in real output, but, in the long run, output will return to the previous level of Real GDP. The impact of this theory is that government attempts to influence Real GDP through fiscal policy are at best ineffectual. This is because Expansionary fiscal policy only causes inflation. Classical economists argue that the economy will return to full employment, presuming that obstacles to the free working of markets are removed. inflationary pressures.

Sometimes when teaching a student will ask me - Are you a Keynesian Sir?

I am reluctant to say yes, because I feel that a good economist should not be tied to a particular ideological viewpoint. A good economist should always be flexible, ready to criticise his own belief's if evidence points in other directions.

However, broadly speaking, I do believe that governments or Central Banks should attempt to stabilise the economy through monetary and fiscal policy. They should not aim to avoid every cyclical fluctuation. But, intelligent monetary and fiscal policy can avoid the worst excesses of boom and bust. In a recession, fiscal policy can play a role in shortening the duration and intensity of the recession.

Related essays:

• Discuss whether demand side policies will reduce unemployment
• Outline problems of recovering from recession
  

My recent essay on Keynesianism vs Monetarism raised the issue of ideological beliefs amongst economists. It is hard to avoid associating yourself with a particular school of economics or certain ideology. But, if we become too attached to a set of beliefs it can cloud our judgement. What happens is we start to look for evidence to support our preconceived ideas, rather than looking at evidence and deciding what they point to.

For example, if we take an issue such as privatisation, people may have a preference either supportive or critical. But, the truth is the desirability of privatisation isn't so clear cut. In the UK, the privatisation of industries such as telecoms, electricity and gas were relatively successful (although some are still critical). There was an increase in efficiency, and in some industries there were lower prices. However, just because privatisation can increase efficiency in certain UK industries doesn't mean privatisation is always desirable. The last privatisation policy was for British Rail. This was a more difficult industry to privatise because:

• Railways are a natural monopoly making competition very difficult. Privatisation effectively creates a private monopoly.
  
• Railways are a loss making industry, but with positive externalities for society. (less congestion e.t.c) Therefore, a socially efficient outcome requires government subsidy and not market forces.
  
• The success of privatisation often depends on the regulatory framework which is implemented. Most UK industries privatised struggled to increase competition, therefore, the government needed a regulatory framework to avoid abuse of private monopolies. Ironically, the success of privatisation often depends on the regulatory framework set up by the government.
  

There are undoubtedly theoretical benefits of privatisation, and the IMF often want developing countries to undertake a policy of privatisation. However, exporting privatisation is not so as simple. It depends on the industries privatised, it depends how privatisation is managed, is there sufficient regulatory framework for the creation of private monopolies?

Ideology of Government Intervention

Another divisive issue is the extent of government intervention. Some will say government's are always inefficient and there should be minimal government spending. Others may feel government intervention is the solution to most problems. But, to make a sweeping judgement that government intervention is always inefficient, is as foolhardy as to say that government intervention always improves economic welfare. The desirability of government intervention depends on many factors:

• What area is the government spending. Is it an industry with positive externalities underconsumed in a free market?
• Is it a public good not provided in the free market.
• How effectively are the government bodies monitored for quality and efficiency of spending?
• What are the levels of corruption in society?
• Is the government spending subject to any discipline of the market?
• Is the spending targeted at worthwhile areas or due to political pressure of powerful lobby groups? EU spending on the Common Agricultural Policy was a triumph of political pressures over economic common sense. But, that doesn't mean agricultural subsidies have to always lead to inefficiency.

One of the great challenges for economics is to move political debates on from gross oversimplifications and ideological disputes. Issues cannot be solved with a blanket ideology of government's are bad, government's are good.

The US is experiencing a growing level of inequality, which is being reflected in terms of differing life expectancy, education and health standards. According to a recent report:

• US finds itself ranked 42nd in global life expectancy (despite having the richest economy and spending $5.2bn (£2.6bn) a day on health care - more than any other country in the world)
• The average life expectancy between Mississippi, in the Deep South, and Connecticut, in prosperous New England differs by 30 years.
• The average life expectancy between Asian-American and black Americans (who have the lowest), differs by 50-years.
• The US accounts for 5% of the global population, but houses 24% of the global prison population.

Causes of relative poverty in the UK include some of these reasons However, the inequality in America seems to be more deep seated. It has more sporadic public health care and welfare benefits than Western Europe.
The report raises many interesting questions:

• Why is inequality in the US so large?
• What can be done about it?
• What is the use in having the highest GDP per capita, if life expectancy is poor and inequality large?

• American inequality at Independent

The Economist is one of the world's most respected publications, founded in September 1843. It is edited in London, but aims at being a global magazine. Half of its 1.3 million copies per issue are sold in North America. It is owned 50% by the Financial Times (a sub division of Pearson PLC) and 50% by private shareholders including members of the Rothschild Family.

It is not focused just on economics, but, examines issues relevant to current affairs. It claims

"to take part in a severe contest between intelligence, which presses forward, and an unworthy, timid ignorance obstructing our progress."

The Economist has certainly cultivated a reputation for being a thought provoking and informed read; but does it deserve this reputation?

Positive Aspects of The Economist

• The writing style is good, concise and sharp. The economist largely avoids the sentimentality and populism of the mass media. I wish my students would read it, just to improve their vocabulary and writing style.
  
• It has A Sense of Humour. (e.g. sending Freakonomics author Stephen Dubner a Pasty through the post) It's not exactly comic book stuff, but some remarks are at least witty; helping to make topics like financial derivatives a little less dull.
  
• They can admit they get things wrong. For example, although they initially supported the invasion of Iraq, they have since admitted that the invasion was deeply flawed. At least, this shows a little humility mostly lacking in politicians.
• Economic Perspective. I generally support their rationale for carbon taxes and road pricing - based on the externalities ignored by the free market. This shows they are not dogmatically pro-market as some may believe. As they are not running for election, they give the impression of evaluating topics on grounds of social efficiency rather than appealing to populist opinions.
  
• Social liberalism. E.g. Support for abolition of death penalty
• Not Complete Ideologues. Although the Economist could be described as socially liberal and fiscally conservative.
• Give Corrupt Politicians a hard time. The Economist rarely shirks from giving corrupt politicians and regimes a hard time.
• Forecasting is Not Bad. Although they get things wrong - like predicting cheap oil for the foreseeable future in 1999. They have been able identify some bubbles such as the internet dot com bubble in 1999 and the global housing bubble in the 2000s.
• Useful Statistics. I often use the statistics and country briefings for essays and teaching purposes. Their Big Mac Index has made it into textbooks as a useful introduction to ideas of PPP
• Compared to some of their Rival Newspapers / Media, The Economist seems a model of journalistic integrity.
  

Negative Aspects of The Economist

• It gets a little tiresome the way that they feel nearly any economic problem can be solved through 'privatisation, deregulation and more flexible labour markets.'
• Their judgement is often sadly lacking. E.g. Supporting Bush in 2000, and supporting the invasion or Iraq. If it had been any magazine, I would have cancelled my subscription; but, because the Economist has a high quality of journalism I bit the bullet and continued to subscribe. At least they don't waste time trying to justify their decision in the face of contrary evidence.
• All articles conform to the same editorial mode, suggesting writers have to start from a certain viewpoint; this creates less scope for journalistic independence.

Overall

As an economics teacher, the economist is an invaluable resource. It reflects a certain ideology and you certainly wouldn't want it to be your only reading material. But, as a simplified guide to global problems and issues, there are few better starting points than the Economist.

• The Economist
• The Economist at Wikipedia

The Economist in The Simpsons

In The Simpsons episode "Catch 'Em If You Can", Homer is traveling by air in first class and says "Look at me, I'm reading The Economist. Did you know Indonesia is at a crossroads?" and when questioned by his wife, he simply replies "It is!" Four days later, with its customary dry wit, The Economist alluded to the quote, and published an article about Indonesia referring to the "crossroads". The title of the issue was "Indonesia's Gambit".

What Do You Think of the Economist?

Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline. The Peak oil point may actually be reached earlier if supply cannot increase fast enough to meet the rising demand. The effects of the peak oil point will be rising oil prices. M. King Hubbert was one of the first to use peak oil concepts in 1956 to predict that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970.

Optimists in the oil industry argue that peak oil theorists often underestimate the amount of oil reserves. Also, optimists argue that technology should advance quickly enough to create new oil fields and extract oil from currently inaccessible prices. The rise in oil prices will only serve to increase the return from investing in new technology. It is argued that the current rise in oil prices has not yet been reflected in investment decisions. There is a significant time lag between oil prices and investment; the current high oil prices should lead to a boom in oil investment in the near future.

Pessimists (or realists as they like to call themselves) argue that the tipping point has already been reached or will be very soon and the current oil price rise is merely an indicator of future rises to come. Peak oil theorists, such as Mr Simmons, argue that many future predictions of supply increases are merely wishful thinking. Evidence by EIA suggesting the oil industry is close to 99% capacity, suggests that supply is very inelastic in relation to rising prices; this only goes to show that supply constraints are already a problem.


Everyone agrees that oil has to run out sometime. The debate is when this tipping point will occur. If it occurs soon, the price rises could cause widespread economic hardship and stunt global growth. If this scenario were likely to occur, it suggests there is market failure in the development of new technologies and therefore requires government intervention to speed new technologies. If, however, oil prices will stabilise it gives credence to those who believe free markets can develop the necessary technology.

It is worth noting that in 1999, the Economist, like many other economists and oil specialists predicted that oil supplies were plentiful and 'dirt cheap' oil would continue for the foreseeable future.The longer high oil prices are sustained, the more importance people will attach to peak oil theories.

• Higher oil prices and marginal consumption
• Rising oil prices not due to speculation

Zimbabwe's beleaguered economy posted a record inflation rate last month. The Central Bank's governor stated inflation in Zimbabwe has now reached 2.2million % - a thirteen fold increase in inflation since February.

Hyperinflation seems out of control as the economy collapses on the back of disruption to supply and unworkable price controls. Life expectancy in Zimbabwe is one of the lowest in the world; it is only 34 for women. 3 million have fled to neighbouring countries.

Costs of Hyperinflation Include:

- Menu costs - costs of changing price lists
- Collapse in economic confidence
- Sheer difficulty in dealing with prices rising at astronomical levels
- Hyperinflation is often symptomatic of underlying problems in economy
- Savings flee economy

• Hyperinflation - Causes, Costs and examples
• Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe
• Zimbabwe inflation soars at Guardian
• UK Inflation increases to 3.8%
  

Economists are notorious for making inaccurate predictions. Many failed to predict the boom and bust in tech stocks and later the housing market. A matter of debate at the moment, is the extent to which rising oil prices are due to speculation and the extent to which they are due to supply and demand?

A recent report from the Energy Information Agency, suggests that supply and demand factors are mostly to blame. The EIA reckons that there will only be a surplus production capacity of 1.2 million barrels (nearly all this surplus is held by Saudi Arabia). This represents an industry operating at 99% capacity. When you are working so close to full capacity, and unexpected rise in demand can easily push prices higher. It is also evidence that the price rise has a fundamental reason of supply and demand behind.

Oil prices Forecasts for 2009

Lower economic growth in the US, Europe and other OECD countries could push demand lower in the coming months. However, this fall in demand is being offset by higher than expected growth in Latin America and persistently growing demand from China and India. This reflects the changing nature of the global oil industry. Oil demand is no longer so dependent on US and European demand. Demand for oil could grow despite falling demand in the US.

Economics confirm oil price rises - at Business 24/7
Why is the Price of Oil Rising?

I've selected 2 post for this week's economics blog carnival; ironically they are from different sides of the political spectrum.

Firstly, a thoughtful post at Enviro Human about the impact of $4.00 gas. Some useful points, including a mention of how many developing countries are subsidising oil. This is an interesting point and explains why demand is continuing to rise despite the rising prices. Although there is a dispute about the amount of speculation behind oil prices, the article makes interesting reading.

Interestingly, the price of petrol in the UK is about £1.20 or $2.40. As 1 US gallon = $4.00. The cost of petrol in the UK is effectively $9.08! per gallon

• Comparatively American petrol is cheap UK petrol is relatively expensive.

Related posts on Oil Prices

• Higher oil prices and marginal consumption
• How To deal with higher oil prices
• Why is the price of oil rising

Are Developers Greedy?

From the other spectrum of the political spectrum we have A post by Urbanism Legend on are developers Greedy? I don't actually agree fully with the article because I think developers ignore the impact on the environment. However, I do agree that there is a lot of NIMBY when it comes to planning. People agree the need for building more houses (in the UK anyway) but, nobody wants them built near their house. A motive is the fact that existing homeowners have an incentive to maximise the existing value of their homes by stopping new homes being built. It is a classic example of insider / outsider. The insiders here are the homeowners, the outsiders are the people wanting to buy a house in the area.

See also: Why is there a housing shortage in the UK?

If you want to submit an article to the carnival of economists you can here I'm quite selective about articles published.

Other interesting Economics links

• Recession plagued Nation demands new bubble to invest in (The Onion)

With house prices falling in the US and UK (and predicted to fall in other Developed countries) an important question is - Are falling house prices good or bad?

Reasons to Be Worried about Falling House Prices

1) Lower consumer spending

In the past, UK and US consumers have used rising equity values as a way to finance higher consumer spending. Consumers have been able to remortgage their house and spend. As house prices fall it is no longer possible to remortgage and gain equity withdrawal.

2) Lower consumer confidence.

Most consumers in the UK (75%) are homeowners; therefore, the value of houses is an important economic variable. As house prices fall, people lose confidence. Falling house prices are seen as a key barometer of the economy. If the value of their most important asset is falling, people will become more risk averse, saving more and spending less. This will cause lower consumer spending and lower economic growth. This is one of the most important factors pushing the economy into recession.

3) Construction sector

Falling house prices have led to the cancellation of many new housing projects. House building firms have seen a slump in demand and therefore, have laid off many staff. This rise in unemployment is causing further economic problems.

4) Negative Equity

Falling house prices increase the number of homeowners facing negative equity (home worth less than mortgage loan). This becomes a real problem for those at risk of defaulting. If people default they still owe money to the bank. This is bad for the homeowner and problematic for the banking sector. Negative equity will further harm the depressed balance sheets of banks. It makes banks more reluctant to lend money and may require more government backed bailouts. The more house prices fall, the greater the levels of negative equity will be. The problem is most acute in the US, where many took out 100% mortgages in the hope of rising house prices; yet, many of these new 'subprime' homeowners now face losing their home and being left with outstanding debts.

Benefits of Falling House prices

1) Correct market imbalance.

Arguably house prices became divorced from price to earnings ratios meaning that they were overvalued. Falling house prices is helping to correct this market imbalance, which had to come at some time.

2) House prices more affordable. Rising house prices led to intergenerational inequality. Many first time buyers could no longer afford to buy new homes and therefore were kept out of the property ladder. Now that prices are falling more first time buyers are able to afford a house (not withstanding the problems in getting mortgage loans)

A common concept in economics is the idea of moral hazard. Basically, this states that a decision can influence future behaviour - often for the worse.

Suppose you have a child who gets into debt. If you unconditionally bail him out and pay off his debts, he may think "great. I can spend whatever I like, as I know my parents will bail me out!" So, in the future, he just gets into a bigger debt . This is moral hazard. At first glance it seems sense to pay off his credit card debt and avoid paying interest payments at 17%; this saves the family money in the future. However, by paying off his debt, it encourages bad economic decisions. This is why a parent would be reluctant to pay off a child's debts without making them commit to changing their behaviour.

• Suppose a bank makes a series of bad loans to people with poor credit histories. Maybe they sell mortgages to people who have no chance of paying them back. (sound familiar?)
• In a few years time, the borrowers unexpectedly start to default on their debt. The bank starts to lose money and could be threatened with bankruptcy.
• The problem is that if a bank goes bankrupt it would seriously undermine the whole financial sector. If people see one bank go under they may start withdrawing their money from all banks. This could cause a financial meltdown. In 2007, the UK experienced this panic as investors rushed to withdraw savings from Northern Rock. In the 1930s, lack of confidence in the banking sector caused people to withdraw their savings and many small and medium sized banks went bankrupt.

So the Government and Federal Reserve have a dilemma. If they do nothing, they risk financial meltdown in the banking sector. However, if they intervene and save the bank, they are in a way saving a bank from it's own bad decisions. Furthermore, it risks moral hazard. If banks know they will always get bailed out they can worry less about making bad loans. If things go pear shaped again the government will always bail them out.

Arguably, the way the government responded to the dotcom bubble of 2000 created moral hazard. The dot com boom and bust caused a risk of a recession as share prices plummeted. Therefore, the Fed cut interest rates very aggressively, close to 1%. This helped avoid a deep recession in 2000-01, but, it created a climate of lax lending in the period 2002-06 and another boom and bust, this time in the mortgage sector. The financial authorities overcome one problem only to create a bigger one in the future.

What is the Solution?

One solution is to bail out the banks and prevent immediate short term problems. But, then the government and / or financial regulators have a responsibility to regulate the banking sector to make sure bad loans are not repeated. Of course, this is easier said than done; but, these issues of moral hazard present a real dilemma for Monetary authorities - To risk financial meltdown or 'reward' bad behaviour.

What do you think? Should the government be bailing out banks who make bad decisions?

This is certainly a topic which will bring a heated debate amongst economists. It is a difficult question to answer and to some extent depends upon the circumstances of the economy. These factors influence whether recessions can be avoided.

Natural Trade Cycle.

For a long time it was felt that economic growth was subject to a natural cycle of high growth (booms) followed by low growth or recession. It was felt that it was not possible for intervention to prevent these cycles. However, in recent decades, it appears that economic cycles have become less pronounced; i.e. booms less noticeable, but recessions shorter and deeper. Therefore, although it is not possible to smooth the business cycle, it is possible to minimise fluctuations so as to avoid an actual downturn. Some have credited independent Monetary policy as helping to minimise trade cycles

Global Trade Cycle

Due to forces of globalisation and the interdependence of world economies, a recession in one country often causes a recession in others. For example, a recession in the EU, would definitely affect the UK economy because the EU is our main export partner. When the world economy slows down, a recession is harder to avoid in your country. However, individual countries may do much worse or much better than the global trend. For example, in the downturns of 1981 and 1991, the recession in the UK was much deeper than the rest of the world. Whilst the government could blame some of the downturn on the world economy, the biggest factor was the individual circumstances of the UK economy.

Booms Can Be Avoided.

The best way to avoid a boom and bust, is for the government / monetary authorities to avoid a boom; if the economy expands too rapidly and inflation occurs, there comes a point when it is almost impossible to avoid a recession. If economic growth is kept close to the long run trend rate and you avoid speculative bubbles in the housing market, this is the best way to avoid a recession. If the economy is allowed to grow above the long run trend rate, then a bust becomes an almost inevitability. For a case study see: Lawson Boom and Bust of late 1980s.

Oil Shocks

Some economic factors are beyond the control of governments. A rapid rise in oil prices creates a situation of stagflation; rising inflation and falling living standards. It presents a difficult situation. The Central bank is caught between raising interest rates to control inflation and cutting interest rates to boost growth. There is a limit to what can be done, when there is a supply side shock. Whatever policy is implemented there is likely to be a worse trade off. The current oil shock makes it very difficult to avoid both inflation and recession.

Fiscal Policy

Fiscal policy is the classical response of Keynesian economics. In a recession, the aim is to boost Aggregate demand through cutting tax and increasing government spending. In theory, this injection into the economy can boost demand and stimulate the economy. To be effective expansionary fiscal policy requires:

• Low government borrowing. If you already have very high levels of government borrowing, it becomes difficult to finance further expansionary fiscal policy.
• Responsiveness of consumers. Cutting taxes may not always boost consumer spending, if people prefer to save the money. For example, high debt levels encouraged many US consumers to save their tax cut.
• Possibility of Crowding out. Higher government spending leads to lower private sector spending

Fiscal policy may not be able to avoid all recessions; but, in some circumstances can help minimise the severity of a recession. The worst thing is for a government to try and balance its budget in a recession like the UK government did in the early 1930s. See: Does Fiscal Policy solve unemployment

Monetary Policy

• Cutting interest rates should make borrowing cheaper and stimulate demand. However, lower interest rates don't always work
• If confidence is very low, people may not want to borrow, even if borrowing is cheaper. e.g. Japan had 0% interest rates in the 1990s, but, failed to stimulate the economy.
• Monetary policy can be constrained by inflationary pressures in times of cost push inflation.

I would suggest governments can cause recessions through irresponsible economic policy. I believe a good example of this is the Lawson Boom; so in a way governments can avoid recessions by not messing things up.

The US government and Federal reserve have tried hard to avoid a recession in the current climate, even at the risk of moral hazard. I believe there steps have minimised the severity of a recession; but, factors like the credit crunch and housing boom and bust are making it very difficult. This would have required a different policy several years previously. Perhaps now it is too late.

• Is UK entering into Recession?
• Problems in recovering from recession

Royal Mail used to have a simple system for costing letters. A letter was either first class 36p or second class 27p. However, the Royal Mail felt this was an inefficient method of paying for postage. because the cost of delivery depends on:

• How much it weighs
• How big the letter is.
• How Far it has to travel

Therefore, they introduced a new pricing strategy, which charged different prices for size of letter (small letter - big letter, package) and also introduced more weight bands.

From an economic point of view this is more efficient. It makes it easier to charge the consumer the marginal cost of delivering the letter. It should encourage some to use smaller letters and reduce unnecessary weight. Previously, there was no incentive. In theory, this more efficient pricing should help reduce costs and lower the overall price of letters.

The Problem of Complicated Pricing

The problem with this new range of pricing structures is that it becomes more difficult to know how much a letter is going to cost. It results in people, either wasting time in measuring / weighing letters or people spending too much money on postage.

In the past few months, I have been uncertain about the weight and size of big letters, rather than

• Waste time going to the post office to have it weighed
• Buy a weighing scales.

I've just put 2 or 3 stamps on and hoped for the best.

This is because I'm always thinking of the opportunity cost. I'd rather spend and extra 36p on a 2nd stamp I don't really need, rather than waste time searching the proper price. The packages are important so I can't risk them not getting there, so I just put on enough stamps to make sure there is no risk. Therefore, I'm sure I've paid more in stamps than I should have done. But, as an infrequent poster, it makes sense to lose a couple of pounds rather than invest time in working out the correct price.
If you can earn £20 an hour, why spend even 5 minutes on measuring and weighing a letter so you can save 37p?

For me, the pricing change is not good. I've lost out, but, paying too much for postage is better than the alternative - wasting time in working out whether to pay 37p, 44p or 66p e.t.c.

It just shows, in the real world, ideas of allocative efficiency are more difficult to work than theory suggests.

By the way, researching this post, I found two useful pages, which will make it easier in the future to know the correct postage. The time investment was about 15 minutes, so it will eventually pay me back. But, if I hadn't been writing this post, I would never have bothered.

Pages on cost of Posting in UK

• Postage rates UK
• Weight Comparison Guide

If you have a blog on Economics, you might like to add your best post to our forthcoming blog carnival - Carnival of the Economists. If you don't have a blog you can still suggest your favourite Economic Article.

A blog carnival is simply a way of sharing the best posts from a certain niche. I will post the carnival next Tuesday. If you would like to submit a post you can do it here - Carnival of the economists
Note: it must be on Economics and if selected we appreciate a link back to this blog.

You can also submit your favourite article from any blog, leaving a description why you think it is a good article.