There is a way out of the current economic mess, writes William Anderson: Stop the government merry-go-round. Malinvested resources must be permitted to be liquidated, government spending must be cut back, and the central bank must not try to "reflate" the currency or the stock market.
Contrary to popular thinking, the stock market does not have causative powers as far as economic activity is concerned. The prices of stocks only reflect individuals' assessments of economic reality. And while individuals can change their evaluations of economic facts, writes Frank Shostak, they cannot alter the facts themselves.
Insider trading laws, writes Dale Steinreich, have empowered the SEC to undertake a mission in information egalitarianism that favors certain classes of investors and strategies, and not others. Martha Stewart and ImClone have the book thrown at them, while the stock sales of Apple Computer's executives are ignored.
Last week, headlines around the world were screaming out the sad tale of WorldCom and its $4 billion or so misstatement of earnings. But should we really be surprised that another poster child of the boom--especially one whose growth has come through rapid-fire acquisitions led by a rock star CEO--has been revealed to be a hotbed of malpractice?
Poor Martha Stewart and Samuel Waksal, snared by arbitrary insider-trading laws that require information to be socialized. If one party knows more than others about a particular firm or industry, the SEC is perfectly able to rule that possessing--and acting upon--that knowledge is a crime.
Popular thinking about economic growth is still strongly influenced by the productivity theory of capital, which presumes that capital engenders a yield like the fruits from a tree, writes Antony P. Mueller. If it were merely aggregate investment that mattered, economic development and continuous wealth creation would be child's play.
Fannie Mae's monopoly privileges have given it an ever-increasing share of the secondary conforming mortgage market, writes Robert Blumen, and it currently is seeking to expand into other parts of the mortgage market. The net result has been a nightmare of resource misallocation and massive systemic risk.
The quirky nature of credit is that it is not necessarily better in abundance, writes Christopher Mayer. It's not like beer, butter, and bananas--where more means cheaper and cheaper is good. Credit is like money; it represents buying power. More credit means more buying power, which means a bidding up of assets and a spark for an unsustainable boom.
What may be the more important factor in manufacturing future Enrons is the role of government in fostering the boom-bust cycle. Enron, then, is just one casualty of many--albeit the largest so far--of massive credit expansion and of manipulation of interest rates by the central bank.
It has been said that the stock market is not an actuarial table. The same can be said of the bond market. Rather than an infallible guide to the future, the bond market embodies the best guesses, hopes, dreams, and fears of many investors. Hence, the bond market can be fallible and, in fact, has been so—in spectacular fashion—in the past.
