|
Share the article on
this page with a friend.
Click
here.
|
|
Economic Forecasts
By Richard P. Halverson
A friend asked recently, “Why is there so much disagreement
among economists and why are they so often wrong?”
Perhaps
the first question is to be asked is why should anyone be
interested in economics? The following definition is helpful
in understanding why.
ECONOMICS 1 : a social science concerned chiefly
with description and analysis of the production, distribution,
and consumption of goods and services.
Merriam-Webster On Line Dictionary
We
all need certain goods and services to live, and most of us
must produce goods and services to exchange for what we need.
Which goods and services we get and how much of them we receive
is matter of economics. Most of us want more than we already
have even while there are many in the world that do not have
enough.
Goods
and services in the world are finite. There is only so much
gold in the world, so much health care, so many cars, so many
cruises, so many places in the classroom, etc. Exactly, which
goods and services each of us will be able to consume during
our mortal experience depends on many things such as: where
we live, our heritage, our culture, our personal abilities,
events in our lives, our families, etc. Government policy
can influence our personal economy. Perhaps the most important
component determining the economic outcomes in our lives is
ourselves. Our own hard work, wise choices and discipline
have a great deal to do with how much of the world’s scarce
resources we are able to consume.
This
brings me to the role of economists in the society. There
are at least two reasons why you and I should pay some attention
to what they say. First, a sense of the direction of the
economy is helpful in making important personal decisions.
Second, important institutions such as government and corporate
employers listen to economists, and their decisions affect
us.
The
problem comes in what my friend asked, “Why is there so much
disagreement among economists and why are they so often wrong?”
What good does it do to pay attention to economic forecasts
if the forecasts are unreliable?
Economic
Forecasting Is Only an Educated Guess
Economic
forecasting is not a science. In truth it is not even an
art. Educated guessing is probably the best description.
There are several serious difficulties economists face.
- Hundreds of millions of economic decision makers. Every consumer whether rich or poor, every business
large or small, and every government, public and charitable
institution in the country represents an economic unit.
They both produce goods and services and consume them.
There are hundreds of millions of us. Each of us makes
decisions based on what we perceive to be our own best interests.
All an economist can do is try to predict how these hundreds
of millions of individual decision makers will respond to
various events. There is simply no human being or computer
that can get inside the minds of all those individuals and
accurately predict what they will do.
For example, assume government economists would like to slow
the economy a little to avoid inflation. Economists
might tell the Federal Reserve that if they raise
interest rates a little the cost of home buying will
increase and fewer homes will be sold. However, consumers
might look at the interest increase and think, “I
had better hurry and buy before rates go up anymore.”
The economists are shocked to see housing sales increase
rather than decrease.
- Large numbers of random events. The problem of forecasting how consumers will
respond is complicated by the fact that most events are
seemingly random and occur outside the control of government
policy makers. September 11th is an extreme
example. During the summer of 2001, the economy was showing
solid signs of recovering from a brief recession. No economist
could have predicted the attack that had an immediate and
dramatic effect on people. Then after the attack there
was wide disagreement by economists on how deep and long
lasting the negative effects would be. Some predicted a
depression. It wasn’t just the economists who were confused,
no one knew.
- Very imprecise tools. Most of us hear a news headline like, “The gross
domestic product increased 3.5% last quarter.” Few of us
realize that number will be revised many times in coming
months before it is final. The gross national product numbers
for last year are still being revised. The quarter you
just heard reported may wind up at 3.0% or perhaps 4.0%.
Who knows? This is a real problem if you are an economist
trying to build this number into your economic forecasting
model.
It gets worse for economists. Not only are the reported numbers
constantly being revised — every once in awhile “they”
will come along and completely redefine them. Imagine
you are an economist. You just get your predictive
model working using something like the consumer price
index when they redefine the meaning of consumer price
index. Now nothing going forward is really comparable
to what was reported in the past. It happens all
the time.
The tools are so imprecise it is difficult to know where we
are, let alone where we are going. For example, I see comments
on a daily basis about how poor the current economy is. In
reality the economy has been growing steadily for nearly four
years. Interest rates and inflation are low. But others point
to the unemployment statistics that are still above an unsustainable
level in the late 90’s, outsourcing and the price of gasoline
and claim things are terrible.
We all make jokes about weather forecasters. But what if the
weather tools were so imprecise that weather forecasters
could not even tell you what the weather was yesterday
— let alone use that to predict tomorrow?
- Predispositions and biases. Because of imprecise measuring tools, random
events and unpredictable behavior on the part of hundreds
of millions of consumers it is nearly impossible to prove
what actually happened and why, when it comes to economics.
This means people can figure out a way to interpret events
to fit their own personal preconceptions and bias. Take
for example the hot button issue of taxes and their effect
on the economy. One group feels the best way to stimulate
an economy is to tax the highest earners and redistribute
their wealth to the lowest earners. The theory is that
the poor must spend every dollar just to live. Thus an
extra dollar will be spent stimulating the economy. The
rich, on the other hand do not need an extra dollar. Consequently,
they many not spend it and this is thought to be less stimulative.
Another camp argues that the rich invest their extra dollars
and that investment capital is necessary for creating jobs
for the poor. Additionally they argue taxes on the rich
discourage them from working and being as productive as
they might be to the great detriment of the economy.
So now that we have these two theories is there any actual
history that can give us clues about which camp is
correct?
When Bill Clinton became President the economy was just emerging
from a recession. He responded by raising taxes to
balance the budget and redistribute money. The economy expanded
and was sound for most of his presidency.
When George W. Bush became President the economy was just sinking
into a recession. He responded by cutting taxes putting
more money in the hands of people to spend and invest. The
economy expanded and has been doing fairly well since.
Two dramatically different approaches both seemingly leading
to a good economy. So the debate rages. Those economists
who believe in lower taxes look at the Clinton years and say, the economy was already improving taxes
actually hurt and the real boom was caused by the Internet/technology
explosion. Those economists who believe in higher taxes look
at the Bush years and say the tax cuts have resulted in large
deficits that are dragging the economy and that things would
be going faster if tax rates were restored. The tax cut crowd
responds by saying the economy was sinking fast when Bush
cut taxes and given the speculative losses in Internet stocks
should have plummeted further. Additionally, 9/11 and the
wars have been setbacks. They argue the economy was saved
by tax cuts.
It is like arguing about religion. It is beyond scientific
proof. People in different camps can find all the anecdotal
evidence they need to justify their beliefs.
Why
Care?
So
if economic prediction is so difficult should you care? Yes!
It is important. Understanding the economy can have these
positive benefits for you.
- You will invest better.
- You will make wiser financial decisions. For example
the success of launching a new business making a job change
or even buying a home can depend on the economy.
- You can be better informed regarding such things
as oil prices and interest rates leading to wiser decisions.
A
Few Economic Truisms
Let
me share with you a few truisms I have found relating to economic
forecasting that may help.
·
Understanding
how ordinary people will respond to changing events is key
to forecasting. This is tough. We all believe we are better
than average in understanding human behavior just like we
all believe we are above average drivers. I guess it is part
of human behavior.
·
People act
in their own self-interest. This collective individual action
is frequently contrary to the good of the economy as a whole.
For example, if the economy starts down people spend less
out of fear. However, spending is what is needed by the economy.
·
People react
with a crowd mentality influenced by what people around them
are saying and doing. Spot the trend early and you can do
well. Get caught up in the trend and you will do poorly.
·
Everything
in the economy is cyclical. Everything. If the cycle is
up prepare for it to go down and vice versa.
·
The economy
is not a sum zero game. A rising tide lifts all boats. It
is true that the swells and waves may bounce the boats around
but on average they will all rise. It is not necessary for
one person to lose in order for another to gain. A feeling
that you are a victim and that others are getting ahead at
your expense is destructive your productivity.
·
Be careful
what taxes and subsidies you support. Here is one economic
principle that works every time. You get less and less of
what you tax and more and more of what you subsidize. Tax
productivity and subsidize laziness and you will get a less
productive and lazier economy.
·
Completely
free markets do not work. Completely controlled markets do
not work. Mankind does not yet have the wisdom to live with
either. Something in the middle is best. The world has much
experience with completely free markets with no central control.
Feudalism might be an example. Eventually, everything is
owned by a very small percent of the most powerful and all
the rest suffer. The world also has much experience with
completely controlled markets. Communism is an example.
Communism was and still is a terrible economic failure everywhere
it has been tried.
You
Are the Most Important Variable In Your Economy
This
closing thought is most important when it comes to ones personal
economic fortunes. There are many events beyond our personal
control that determine how each of us will do personally.
However, no matter what our circumstances we can improve them
through hard work, discipline and making wise choices. In
the end each of us are the most important variable in our
personal economic fortunes. The more you believe you are
responsible for yourself the more economic progress you will
make. The more you believe you are dependent on someone else
doing things for you the less progress you will make.
|
|
|
About
the Author:
|
Richard
P. Halverson
Meridian Financial Editor
|
Richard
P. Halverson is a founding partner of the investment company Great
Northern Capital. He received his Bachelor of Science degree in
Banking and Finance from the University of Utah and a Master of
Business Administration degree from Harvard University where he
was named a Baker Scholar. He
served on the following committees for the Association of Investment
Management and Research (AIMR): as a member of The Standards and
Practices Committee, 1981-1990; as a member and chairman of the
Professional Conduct Committee, 1982-1993; as chairman of the Ethics
Awareness and Education Committee, 1993-1996. In
1994, he received the Daniel J. Forrestall III Leadership Award
from The Association for Investment Management and Research (AIMR)
for his work in the area of ethics in the investment profession.
He first
became interested in personal finance while serving as a Bishop.
During the day he worked in the world of billion dollar finance,
but during the evenings he found himself immersed in the more difficult
world of family finance. This led him to write the book Financial
Freedom. He is also a contributing author to the McGraw Hill
Real Estate Handbook and Smart Money Magazine. He claims to be proof
that you can be in the investment business and still not get rich!
He resides in Minnesota and is the father of seven children.
|
|
What
do you think?
|
|
|
|
Related
Articles:
|
|
Money
Wise Article Archive
|
Format
for Print
Click
here
|
|
Share
the article on this page with a friend.
Click
here. |
|
|