Future development comes with both benefits and costs

Published: Thursday, January 8, 2009 at 9:00 a.m.

I once read in a famous book about good government that a city either progressed or declined; it did not have the option of standing still. So it is with the wonderful city of Lexington. I have tried to keep up with the plans our local governments have made for the future development of our city.

In particular, four cases come to mind: the Duracell plant, the depot district, Erlanger and the potentially annexed area around Sapona. Before any of these events come to pass, the community must understand their potential benefits and costs. If we are not careful, debt and stagnation could occur just as easily as wealth and progress. You know the old adage: It is easier to spend money than to make money.

In the case of the Duracell plant, I read that it is a finalist for use as prison space for our "overcrowded" jails. I must call into question this move by the county government. I feel it would be both fiscally and symbolically irresponsible. According to the paper, the current jail is already overcrowded, despite the fact that it should have lasted well into the next decade. The government feels the solution is to purchase an even larger site. I think this is a poor choice. To understand why, one need only ask - why didn't the last expansion last as long as it should have? The answer is in the expression "work expands to fill the time available." The reason the new expansion filled up so fast is because everyone assumed there would be room to spare. More people were put in jail for longer periods of time, because we had the space. Consequently, the space filled up faster than had been anticipated.

This is not the fault of law enforcement. They do what they feel they must to keep us safe. But the answer to the problem is not to expand the jail. It will just fill up like the last one. The local government needs to prioritize and allow the justice system to cope with the current capacity, as they did before the first expansion. Furthermore, the Duracell plant was a symbol of Lexington's industry, and transforming it into a prison would send the wrong message about our area to businesses. Instead, county government should continue to work with Tower Investments, the owners of the site, to find a job-creating industry to place there.

The depot district is another candidate for development. I reviewed the N.C. A&T University Master Plan for the district and found it promising. The plans for green space, an amphitheater, depot and hub showed creativity. However, I feel the plan has a "counting your chickens before they hatch" feel to it. Sure, an amphitheater would be nice, but for the foreseeable future it would never recoup the cost of its construction. Building these structures would require demolishing millions of dollars worth of capital for the sake of a park and some stone steps. Before we spend millions of dollars to destroy millions of dollars, we should take a long pause. Once again, I think the city should focus on finding ways to generate income from these structures.

The one area I do agree with the students is the railroad depot and hub. Any human or industrial traffic that might stop in Lexington is a good thing. The government would do well to explore any coordination that could occur between the hub and the Davidson County Airport. Any area where a railroad stops near an airport could be useful for transporting goods. This could mean jobs, industry and income, which is what the county really needs.

Finally, I would like to consider Erlanger and the potentially annexed area around Sapona. I have connections to both of these places. My grandparents lived in Erlanger when it was a mill town, and I live just outside of Sapona. I think the plans to redevelop Erlanger are well-intentioned and positive overall. However, I do have a few words of caution on the effects of this redevelopment. Once it has been accomplished, the property value of the homes will increase, and this will drive up rent as well as taxes. This could force some of the residents, who will no longer have enough income to pay this money, to lose their homes. City planners call this gentrification. The local government should keep this in mind as they improve the area.

The attempt to annex Sapona is the last subject I would like to address. Many of the arguments have been made - again and again - so I will keep mine short. Though I might gain enormously from living just outside the city limits, I think the city should drop the annexation for the time being. The primary purpose for the annexation seems to be an increase in tax revenue. But increasing tax revenue through property taxes is uncreative and burdensome to the community. Instead, the city government should do everything in its power to be as business friendly as possible. I implore the city council to leave Sapona alone and develop Erlanger. Use all the legal fees you will save as incentives for new businesses to locate in Lexington. If you do this, you'll be the heroes of the hour, and not some of the nasty names you've been called on the pages of this newspaper.

Economic decisions involve more than reducing taxes

Over the past few months, I have been following the policy debate between Republicans and Democrats over the idea of cutting taxes. Naturally, no candidate wants to be branded as the one who wishes to raise taxes. Unfortunately, as with many political debates, the debate over taxes has missed some fundamental economic issues that must be confronted and accounted for before taxes can even be addressed.

Thus, since I am not running for public office, I have the luxury and the opportunity to attempt to address these issues that I feel are so important. These issues include budget deficits, trade deficits, monetary policy and, finally, tax policy. I hope I can be informative and enlightening on these difficult issues in this short article — so wish me luck.

Everyone who has ever had to take out a loan knows that the budget deficit presents a huge problem for America at this time. Debt for a long-term investment, like your education, can be good. But debt that balloons out of control is bad news. Why? Well the debt of the federal government is bad for several reasons.

First of all, the debt must be financed by issuing securities like bonds from the treasury, printing money or raising taxes. I will only address issuing securities, since it is what our government does most of the time. If American lenders buy up these securities, then that absorbs money they could have lent to other companies. The result is that as the government deficit increases and crowds out the market for loans, you have to pay a higher interest rate on loans.

If Americans don’t buy up the debt, the foreign countries do. What results from this? Not only do foreign countries become our bankers, but when their securities mature, they are capable of purchasing assets in the United States that were originally American-owned. Profits from these companies can then go overseas and be taken out of our economy.

Next I would like to discuss the trade deficit. It is a well-known fact that the United States imports more than it exports. What does this mean? Purchasing goods from overseas means we have to use the money of the foreign country. If we want their money more than they want ours, then our money is worth less than theirs. Thus, a trade deficit puts pressure on our dollar to devalue.

Now, it is natural for the dollar to fluctuate up and down throughout time. However, if it drops substantially relative to other countries very quickly, then Americans see a real decrease in purchasing power. This decline in the dollar hits you at places such as the gas pump, where the gas we import from overseas costs more because the dollar is worth less. Finally, the dollars we send overseas to purchase these goods do not just stay outside the country. Like with the debt, this money is often used once again to purchase American assets.

Now I will briefly consider the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve. In weaker economic times such as today, the Federal Reserve will strive to cut interest rates in order to help the economy. They have been doing this throughout the year. The problem we face arises from our double budget and trade deficit. The Federal Reserve lowers the interest rate by increasing the money supply. But our budget deficit is driving up interest rates, and our trade deficit is already hurting the dollar. Thus, while these two problems remain, our monetary policy might not be of much help.

Finally, I want to discuss what this means for tax policy. I don’t want anyone to think I am a doom-and-gloom person. There is a way out of this. The first thing that must be done is to get the national debt under control. How can this be done? Three ways: raise taxes, cut government spending or do both. This is where my bias comes in; and I will warn you that I sympathize with Senator Barack Obama and the Democrats. I think we need to do both.

In the past seven years we have cut taxes and increased government spending, which is similar to you taking a cut in pay and deciding you can spend more. It is simply unworkable. We need to increase taxes and decrease government spending so we can pay down the debt. More tax cuts definitely aren’t the answer, because that will only enlarge the deficit without spending cuts, and I’ve already detailed how the growing national debt hurts you and the economy. The hope behind more tax cuts is that they will stimulate the economy, and if income grows, then the government will take in more tax revenue. But if the economy is slumping, as it is now, and spending doesn’t change, the policy would be a disaster.

Why don’t we just cut spending then? This is a possibility, but you can expect a big fight in Congress over where spending should be cut. Do we cut Social Security? Medicare? Veterans benefits? Subsidies for farmers? Defense spending? Education? Somebody must lose money. Just like no politician wants to raise your taxes, no politician wants to take your benefits away either.

You don’t have to agree with me. But I hope I’ve shown that the debate is more complicated than just raising or lowering taxes.

Derek Mobley wants a car in every garage and a chicken in every pot.

This articled appeared in The Dispatch.

Real vs Nominal (Interest rates and GDP)

This post is for all those lucky public school teachers out there who make $28,000 a year. Have you ever wished that you could use those dollars in, for example, 1914. I'm sure you've considered it. Just think! If I had only been able to take $100 of my money and put it into Coca-Cola. I'd be rich!

I know you all realize this is just wishful fancy. However, I must burst your bubble further. Just as you cannot go back in time, you also cannot assume $28,000 of currency in 2008 translates into the same thing in 1914. We have to take into account that word that homeowners love (because it makes them wealthier), and teachers hate (because they live on fixed income) Inflation!

This is the difference between real and nominal variables in economics, real variables have been adjusted for inflation. For example, say as a teacher you make $28,000 a year. However, you do not receive pay raises and every year inflation causes the price level to increase by 5% generally. You might think you income is staying the same. But it turns out, to your dismay, that you are effectively receiving a 5% paycut every year!

In the same line of thinking. Let's say our GDP grew a nominal rate of 8% from 2007-2008. However, inflation was 6%. Adjusted for inflation, our GDP would have grown by a real rate of 2%.

It also works the same way for interest rates. Let's say you put money into a savings account at 2% interest. However, inflation is usually around 3% even in a healthy economy. You are in fact losing 1% of the value of your money by putting it into a savings account!

Therefore, you have to be wary of inflation when you are considering your financial future. You may think you are gaining something or only losing a little, when it fact it is more than you bargained for! Yet, inflation can be a good thing for some people. As I previously stated for someone who owns a home. If the rate of inflation is higher than the real interest rate, your home gains value by just sitting there!

The bottom line here is. Be Real!

Debt vs Equity: or Bonds vs Stock

Given the current collapse of Bear Stearns, and the buyout by JP Morgan at just $2 a share, I thought today might be a good time to talk about Debt and Equity in a company. So, here are your basics:

A company's debt is often held in the form of bonds. These bonds are generally issued at an interest rate i, and can either be paid in full at a maturity date or over a period of time. Bonds are normally a sound investment with lower risk than their counterpart stock. Therefore, bonds are issued at lower interest rates. This is due to the fact that in the event of a collapse, such as Bear Stearns, the bond holders are paid first. Stock holders are compensated only with that remains, if anything remains at all!

Equity is usually equated with common stock. This is the value of share in the company that you often seen sliding across Bloomberg TV. Stock is generally more risky for the aforementioned reasons, and so you can expect to earn a higher rate of return on stocks. In the late 20th and early 21st century, companies have been finding stock to be quite cumbersome for the same reasons mentioned. Having to pay a higher interest rate to a bunch of unconnected shareholders can be fruistrating, and thus in the spirit of creative response, companies found a way around the issuing of stock or bonds.

Commerical Paper: is the creative response to the problem of common stock. Commerical paper is essentially the company using its good standing with a known bank to obtain loans. This cuts out the stockholders. This process, however, can also be risky. Banks that make these loans generally do so on good faith, so if a corporation does not make good on the faith, the banks can be left holding the bill. Enron was a case and point of this occurrence.

So there you have it! Debt vs Equity. It is, as always, a small and incomplete explanation of how the process functions. But I hope you have left informed!

The Core of Macroeconomics
Y=C + I + G + (X-M)

I hope that everyone is doing well this fine evening. We've seen a lot of volatility in the Market today, as well as a spike in the price of Gold. That's to be expected in times like these. As the status of the dollar becomes more uncertain and volatility increases, people are convinced that fleeing to the old trusty gold standard will save them from the windfall. That's all for the news, because today I would like to be more informative and focus upon a fundamental identity in macroeconomics. Perhaps it will help some of you understand what is going on in our economy!

Y = C + I + G + (X-M) in other words National Income = Consumption + Investment + Government spending + (Exports -Imports).

What does this mean?

Well, national income is basically the GDP of a country. What is the GDP you might ask? GDP is essentially the value, in dollars for we Americans, of all the final goods and services produced in our economy. Tractors, bikes, steaks etc. etc.

Consumption is, as it sounds, the amount of goods we as citizens have consumed. For example, how many steaks have we eaten.

Investment and this is key for economics. It's basically things you've purchased that you plan to gain income from. Such as houses, machinery for a business etc.

Government spending is the total amount the government has spent in a period. Be it debt spending or not!

(Exports-Imports) is also pretty self explanatory. It is the amount of stuff we've sent to other countries minus the amount we have purchased from other countries.
How is this relevant to today's economy?

Well, you might notice my rant about the Fed cutting the interest rate and allowing banks to keep money longer. This is because, as many of you know, we are currently experiencing a large government deficit and a large trade deficit. Both of these put pressure on our $ to devalue, because economies like to be in equilibrium. If the dollar weakens, it becomes cheaper for the US to export, shrinking our trade balance. Not only does it hurt people more than it has to, but it is also a matter of pride. The dollar should be a symbol of stability, in my opinion.
However, the act by the fed of putting more money into the system has made the decline in the dollar stronger than it should have been. This, coupled with stagnated wages in the face of inflation (also caused by the interest rate cuts) is sure punishment for the average person. If somebody asks you what the trouble is with our current economy, now you know!

The Fed's Plan 3/11/08

The Market is currently on a 200 point rally today. Shame on me for posting such a depressing analysis yesterday? I would have to disagree.

This article gives a synposis of the fed's plan.

Basically, everyone is happy because the FED is going to allow troubled banks to keep their loans longer, and they're injecting MORE money into the system. Of course we would expect a short market rally, because that is what the market wants the FED to do. All these people who made bad mortgage investments are crying for a bailout, and this chairman is not going to let the politicians down in an election year!

I believe it was our own Mr. Benjamin Franklin (who is also feeling the crunch of the declining dollar) who said that insanity was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The FED is just adding more liquidity to the market coupled with lowering interest rates. This is usually sound policy, but now the other variables have come into play.

Our trade deficit, our budget deficit, and inflation are more problematic than they have been in the recent past. This move by the FED will devalue our currency more, boosting gas prices higher, and making the dollar weaker. Wall Street will rally, but everyone else is going to feel the pinch of inflation, which will make its way back to Wall Street. The politicians are just hoping this happens after November 6.

Analysis of Today's Economy

Today on 3/10/08 the DOW fell 1.29%, to 11,740. Oil Prices hit a record high above $108 a barrel. A majority of American think we are in or heading for a recession. The dollar continues to weaken, and credit has dried up around the world. It is truly a wonderful day to start this blog! Information on today can be found my looking at the links to your right or checking out this article.

I thought I might take a moment to give my own personal historical account on how we came into this mess. I will try to be as brief as possible...

It all began when the dot-com bubble burst in 2001. On January 4, 2001 the prime interest rate was 9%. As the bubble burst and the economy went into a downward spiral, the FED acted as expected by cutting interest rates. This expanded the money supply and this theoretically a shot in the arm to a struggling economy. However, with the events of 9/11 and the wars in the middle east, the economy continued its downward spiral. So, the FED cut rates more and more until finally in June of 2003 the interest rate bottomed out at 4%. This was a low unheard of in recent history, and its effects in a globalized economy were difficult to predict.

This is where the sub-prime mortgage loans came into play. With interest rates this low, and with housing prices going through the roof, everybody decided it was time to buy a home! They got adjustable rate mortgages (ARM's) because they were cheaper as long as interest rates remained low. The real estate market bubbled in response to these cuts because people got the idea that you couldn't lose money on real estate. This is the first tell-tale sign of a bubble and you will certainly lose if you get caught up in this madness.

Long story short...

The economy began to "recover" and the FED allowed the rates to rise. All those profit seekers with ARM's decided to cash out and the market was flooded. Housing prices dropped, interest rates increased, and people began to default. All those people who thought they couldn't lose began to lose big time! The FED rushed into help by cutting interest rates again. But oh here's where the other variables come into play!

1. Gas prices had been rising due to growing economies in places such as China and uncertainty in the middle east.

2. Our long growing trade deficit was finally putting stress on the dollar to depreciate, as the laws of financial gravity state it must in order to bring the balance back into equilibrium.

Thus, by cutting interest rates, the FED hurt the dollar more because it had become more sensitive. The depreciation caused by increasing the money supply with interest rate cuts drove the dollar down further, making gas even more expensive. High gas prices impose higher transactions costs on everything, the demon of inflation is unavoidable!

We and the FED appear to be stuck between a rock and a hard place? What shall we do, I might have to save that for the next post!

Mission Statement: This Blog will seek to provide the reader with the author's understanding of the myriad of forces at work in the world of investment and economics in general. After providing this understanding, it will seek to demonstrate the utility of firm-foundation theory and its use in fundamental analysis. Finally, this blog will seek to demonstrate the utility of this theory as applied to the author's own portfolio.