What Do We Do With A Drunken Market?

Philip H

Philip H is an oceanographer who makes his way in the world trying to use more autonomy to sample and thus understand the world's ocean. He's a proud federal scientist, husband, father, woodworker and modelrailroader. The son of a historian and public-school teacher and the nephew and grandson of preachers, he believes one of his greatest marks on the world will be the words he leaves behind. To that end he writes here at OT and blogs very occasionally at District of Columbia Dispatches. Philip's views are definitely his own, and in no way reflect the official or unofficial position of any agency he works for now or has worked for in his career. If you disagree, take it up with him, not Congress.

Related Post Roulette

44 Responses

  1. Oscar Gordon says:

    Meaning that US regulators, backed by Congresses and White Houses of both parties have allowed mergers to go forward that throttle competition and thus set the economy up for larger and larger failures due to smaller and smaller perturbations – and Covid was not a small perturbation.

    Yes, unrestrained mergers are a big part of the problem, but…

    …you know what’s coming, this is me, after all…

    …another part is the fact that the US has made it very expensive to create industrial capacity because of regulations. And since EVERY regulation is a Chesterton’s Fence/Gate who has some cheerleading lobby to keep it in place (and oftentimes the lobby is from entrenched players in those regulated industries who enjoy the limits on competition), trimming the cost-added regulations that result in questionable gain in safety/consumer protection is nearly impossible, because no one really pays attention to the numbers of such regs (cost vs. safety), they pay attention to the stories.

    Now, of course you are also right that single minded focus on quarterly numbers and satisfying investor fantasies has greatly contributed to the mess, but it’s hard for new competitors to emerge to challenge the staid old guard and their tunnel vision if it’s too expensive for new competitors to even join the game.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

      The game isn’t hard to join due to regulations if you price appropriately. Its hard to join because you can’t go from zero to 20-25% of the baby formula market without billions to invest. Its hard to create a new class 1 railroad with what’s not owned by the class 1s already for the same reason – but if you are Watco or the Genessee & Wyoming or RailAmerica, you can create rail systems of the parts the class 1s cast off.

      trimming the cost-added regulations that result in questionable gain in safety/consumer protection is nearly impossible, because no one really pays attention to the numbers of such regs (cost vs. safety), they pay attention to the stories.

      This is not true at the federal level – we have statutory mandates to review stuff every 5 years, and almost all laws that engender regulations have expiration dates that require Congress to renew them (or not).Report

      • Oscar Gordon in reply to Philip H says:

        And at the state level? County? City? It’s much easier and cheaper to put up regulatory blocks at the lower levels of government, if you target carefully (hitting every state, county or city is expensive, but certain key governments can limit things sufficiently).

        As for review, does every regulatory office have sufficient staff to review the full body of regs every five years (I’m betting not), so if anything is trimmed, it will be the low hanging fruit no one cares about. Target something that is ideological or competitively sensitive, and I’m betting there will be political pressure applied to whoever at the top is subject to pressure that said regs should not be looked at very hard.

        And yes, for industrial capacity, it IS hard to join. There are EPA studies that need doing, even you are taking over an old facility that made the stuff you want to make. The public will have a chance to speak up (& your future competitors will certainly try to rile up the NIMBYs to stop you). Then you get all the relevant city, county, state, and federal agencies you have to satisfy (and whatever duplication of effort that will entail). And you still have to buy the land, building, and machinery.

        So it’s very hard, it requires a lot of work to get the necessary investors to front you the money to make it happen. And given that one of your chief complaints is that old, established companies are too focused on short term numbers, depending on them to spend the money to step up a new baby formula factory or rail line is just asking for it to be more of the same (under staffed and extremely sensitive to shocks).

        What’s interesting to me is how the US treats developing economies around the world with kid gloves, overlooking corruption and regulatory deficits we would never tolerate at home, but can’t seem to come up with a regulatory environment that treats developing businesses the same. You want to make baby formula in the US, you had better be able to compete directly with Abbot or Nestle right out the gate, because you will face the exact same regulatory burden they’ve spent decades learning to manage. Which means you have to be Johnson & Johnson or Kraft Heinz to have a chance.Report

        • Philip H in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

          So what’s your solution? LESS regulation? How’d that work in the financial industry in 2008? How’d that work for baby food – where we now know it took 8 months for the FDA to shut Abbot down in the first place?Report

          • Oscar Gordon in reply to Philip H says:

            Less? Sure. There’s always something at some level of government that is old & useless but exists because someone is invested in it (either it harms competition, or satisfies an ideology, or extracts political or financial rents).

            Would that be enough? Probably not.

            But picking a single case and saying, “How about Abbott?!” is exactly what I meant by stories over numbers.

            Think of it this way, we’ve made the cost of setting up and operating a baby formula factory so expensive that only huge companies can afford to do it, those companies are constantly allowed to consolidate to control and reduce costs, and one of the big reasons costs need to be controlled is A) satisfying investor fantasies, and B) keeping the price of the product low enough that poor families can afford it.

            Now one thing we could do is retool out financial laws so satisfying investor fantasies is dis-incentivized. I’m not sure exactly how to do that, and I recognize there is a danger there (i.e. investors take their money elsewhere), but that could be one approach.

            Or we could force regulatory coordination between agencies at every level, so a city couldn’t stack their own rules on top of state or federal rules, because some politician just has to make their political mark on whatever the latest outrage is on the local news.

            We could also insist that regulatory burdens are consistent with the size of the business, so a start-up isn’t trying to meet the same regulatory burden a massive player has to. The big guys want the small guys to have the same burden, because it hurts them, not because it’s necessary for safety. So not less regulations, but tiered ones, so you don’t have to satisfy X until you are producing Y amounts of product, or have Z employees, etc.

            But numbers over stories. Is this rule actually effective*, or does it just make us feel better because it’s there?

            *And yes, I know that it’s a difficult number to determine.Report

        • DavidTC in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

          I mean…you just did a lot of agreeing with Philip there, without seeming to realize it.

          First of all, those regulations that are too complicated to hit are _due to_ one of two things. Either a) failures that killed babies, in which case we don’t want companies to be able to avoid them, and they are in fact good, or b) lobbying by the industries themselves to keep competitors out.

          And you know what would stop (B)? Not having so few competitors to start with. Not having such power concentrated in just a few hands. If there were dozens of companies like this, two or three of them couldn’t say ‘Hey, increase our regulatory burden, it’s fine! (Because we can meet it and smaller people can’t.)’

          Second, the lack of smaller companies is why _normal_ investors aren’t willing to lend money to _normal_ startups. In fact, if the entire business world wasn’t hyperfocused on extremely short-term profits, there would be more money for that sort of investment.

          As it is, the ‘correct’ investment stragety is to jump, crazed, from business to business, hoping for skyrocketing shot-term stuff and getting out before the collapse…and that happens in both existing companies and startups. Startups have to be ‘extreme innovative’ and promise gibberish, and 99% of them fail, instead of just ‘Look, we’re going to start making this thing that already exists and people buy, and we’ll generate a consistent profit from it, please give us some money to do this and you will get some of those profits’.

          And this is the point where I mention that a good chunk of this is how we don’t have ‘low-level’ investors anymore. The only people you can go to for this amount of money are the super-rich, which are careless asshats who are all looking for extreme longshots. I.e, everyone involved is buying lottery tickets instead of just betting on black at roulette…so the people who are setting up a company that has a 48% chance of being moderately successful cannot get funding, whereas the people who have a company that has a 0.001% chance of being absurdly successful can.

          This is because _already_ being wealthy skews the calculations. People who have $100,000 are not making a $1 roulette bet that might win them $2. And, right now, it’s _already_ wealthy people who invest.

          And thanks to lack of enforcement, a lot of the stuff aimed at poorer people is outright scams. We don’t have anyone walking around selling Cola-Cola or IBM stock, and it honestly wouldn’t be safe to buy it if we did, because the SEC is completely toothless and it means what they are doing is probably a scam. Public stock is almost completely unuseable in this way, because it’s subject to the random whims of the superrich in ways that are completely disconnected from the actual value of companies.

          (This has been part 353 in my 1,354,738,123,621,843 part series ‘How wealth disparity has screwed up basically every aspect of our economy and is the cause of 90% of our problems there’.)Report

          • Oscar Gordon in reply to DavidTC says:

            Oh, no, I fully realize it; just like I, for the most part, agree with everything you just said.

            So, how do we fix the financial industry that has a powerful incentive to now be fixed and the ability to ensure politicians and pundits work to make sure it doesn’t get fixed?

            Also, while it would be nice if there was more investment money going around for start-ups that make a small but solid profit, we still need to take regulatory burden seriously, because if satisfying regulations is perceived (key word here) as rewarding capture or rent seeking, or fluffing the financial or political nests of someone else, investors will be hesitant to fund it, since it’ll be seen as a step removed from funding graft.

            I would start by looking at the regs the big players really support.Report

  2. Tim Crowe says:

    What about politicians just do the right things instead of just doing and saying what they think will get them re-elected? It seems like some kind of term limits should be part of the solution. It’s obvious that voters are upset with high inflation.

    It sure feels like all the big trillion dollar bills were made without really having thought through the detail and a way to administer the programs.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Tim Crowe says:

      If people actually spent any time considering track record beyond tribal affiliation we’d have self limiting politicians. Because people would vote them out when they fail. but that’s not the electorate we have.

      That aside, baby food monopolies are not the result of directive government regulations – they exist because government stopped regulating.Report

      • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H says:

        That aside, baby food monopolies are not the result of directive government regulations – they exist because government stopped regulating.

        Is it possible for small players to make baby food? If the answer is “no”, then yes, the oligarchy is because of gov regs.Report

  3. It’s funny how NPR, which is not exactly a super huge pack of conservatives, claims it was WIC and state contracts (otherwise known as government manipulation of a free market) that caused the baby formula shortage.

    https://www.npr.org/2022/05/19/1099748064/baby-infant-formula-shortagesReport

    • They claim it was one factor. The story starts where i started, with industrial consolidation. The story also includes the protectionist stance regarding deflecting imports.

      I assume you oppose WIC and the state contracts (which the federal government doesn’t control)?Report

      • Chris in reply to Philip H says:

        Another thing on which there is a huge literature. Things we know: a) WIC is an incredibly important program, with significant impacts on all sorts of outcomes for children and parents, and b) because of funding limits, it needs the competitive bidding process to work. That each state has only one WIC-approved provider does create market inefficiencies (including higher prices for non-WIC consumers), and there are really only two ways around this: get rid of WIC, which would be a disaster for many families, and no doubt influence all sorts of decision making around having children, or b) fund WIC better, so that WIC can pay a higher price for formula, eliminating the competitive bidding processes, and the single-provider that results from it.

        There are, of course, even better options, but they’re unlikely to find much purchase here: 1) massively expand the welfare state, making WIC unnecessary, and/or 2) nationalize the manufacture of formula.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

        For the record, the whole “I assume you oppose X” framing is bullshit.Report

        • Philip H in reply to Jaybird says:

          So is “NPR said this was the cause” when they said it was one of three factors . . . .Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Philip H says:

            I suppose the eternal problem is that a problem with multiple causes will not be fixed with any silver bullet that only addresses one of them.

            But you’re allowed to think that one of the causes is the worst one.

            You’re even allowed to think that the problem would be manageable without the worst one.

            I can’t believe that you disagree with this to the point where you’re willing to put people in jail over it.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Kristin Devine says:

      Here’s the part of the essay that I noticed:

      To address the current formula shortage, the FDA has relaxed its rules to allow for imported formula — a tacit admission that foreign supplies can be sold safely, with adequate precautions.

      The FDA has swung too far. I understand the whole “risk prevention” thing but if you aren’t paying the price, you have no idea how much a trade-off really costs.Report

  4. Jaybird says:

    I got a raise last year and it was pretty good. Under most circumstances, I’d only brag about it to a handful of people and, if pressed by someone not in that handful, I’d say “Hey, I’m very happy with where I am.”

    Except for inflation. My raise was less than inflation.

    So I’m in a place where even though my paycheck is a bit bigger, my money is rotting.

    Going to the gas station, I find myself wincing with each fill-up even though I drive a Yaris with a 10 gallon tank. My head says something like “$20 to fill the tank is *GREAT*, $25 to fill the tank is fair.”

    It was more than $40 last time.

    And I know how lucky I am, and how fortunate I am, and how well-positioned I am.

    There are a lot of people who are not as lucky as me.

    The economy doing well while more and more people are feeling left behind is a recipe for…

    Well. Maybe we should work harder at making sure that people don’t have guns.Report

  5. InMD says:

    Good piece. This is an area where I think too many decades of stoned libertarian theory has screwed up the way we look at these problems. For capitalism to work well it needs to be both well regulated and also subject to intelligent enforcement and enforcers. Somewhat related I’m quite curious to see how Lina Khan’s tenure at the FTC goes.Report

  6. Slade the Leveller says:

    Can we lay some of the blame on JIT delivery? That system only works if there are absolutely no glitches in the system. Throw in a bunch of workers calling in sick from or dying of Covid and the whole thing falls apart.Report

    • I view JIT inventory as a symptom of the consolidation and the hyperfocus on short term profits. JIT arises because maintaining stock is an expensive proposition – you need land, warehouses, transportation infrastructure and staffing. Plus there’s an ego thing where if you have to maintain stock to maintain production, you are assumed to be too stupid to figure out what you need when.

      So while it definitely contributes when things go south, I don’t see it as driver.Report

      • Slade the Leveller in reply to Philip H says:

        It’s a very fragile system that is dependent on decisions made at the top of the food chain. I do think consolidation plays a big role in our woes, and I would love to see a beefed up anti-trust division at the DoJ, but when the rubber meets the road no matter how many producers you have, JIT is going to be susceptible to tiny, but rippling, breakdowns in the chain.Report

        • Oscar Gordon in reply to Slade the Leveller says:

          This is true, and, if I remember my Lean training, it is something that is very much talked about during the training.

          But being told during your training that JIT is sensitive to disruptions, and you (as a business leader) have to have a plan to react to those disruptions, is a far cry from actually having said plan, and spending the effort and resources to make sure the plan is up to date, and the pieces are in place is hard, and takes time you could be spending at your house in the Hamptons, or on your yacht, not to mention that devoting those resources impacts your bottom line and risks your yearly bonus.

          JIT is great, but you have to make sure ALL your incentives are aligned to it, not just the few that impact your quarterly numbers.Report

          • Damon in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

            Yeah, I was thinking about this as well. I recall some commentary somewhere about JIT and America adopting it from the Japanese, but ofc the Japanese were JITing from other companies within Japan, not stretching a supply line from Chicago through San Diego to Asia. There’s a lot more potential disruptions in the latter than the former scenario.Report

          • North in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

            Well if nothing else you’d think the last couple of years will draw a heavy red line under the part of the analysis that talks about the risks of JIT and that businesses will start adjusting- particularly if China continues to wallow around in the fiasco that is their Zero Covid strategy.Report

            • InMD in reply to North says:

              I don’t know what the right answer is but I do think it’s time that the American consumer market was looked at as a privilege for businesses, not a right. We can’t have our entire economy held hostage like this. It sounds like an anachronism but we almost need something that would have once been called an industrial policy, and one that’s willing to be more activist than the recent past. But can we do that without killing innovation and do we have regulatory bodies with the competency to do it in a way that is far sighted? I have my doubts.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to InMD says:

                IMHO, innovation is really hard to kill unless you are actively trying to. Maintain IP protections, and allow people to earn a profit from their innovations, and it will happen.

                The question is less will it or won’t it, or more a question of degrees.Report

          • Dark Matter in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

            Whether JIT is appropriate depends on which industry you’re in and which supply chain you’re looking at.

            JIT is designed for auto makers. VERY high volume, multiple suppliers, relatively low profit (on that part). You’re more vulnerable to disruption but not to crazy levels.

            In some ways you’re pushing your “excess” inventory down onto your suppliers.

            Applying JIT to other markets can be wildly stupidly inappropriate. Saving pennies on a widget but forgoing thousands of dollars in profits when you can’t get that widget which happens more often that you want. The widget has a single source supplier which doesn’t (or can’t) view your business as very important.

            Now the nasty part in a large corp is the “saving pennies” can end up on the balance sheet of one part of the business while the forgoing profits can show up on another.

            We got bit, HARD, by this kind of nonsense and I assume we don’t do JIT any more.Report