« Markets in everything | Main | Why is lobster getting cheaper? »
Fallacies about sovereign wealth funds
Here's one of them:
One often reads statements that sovereign wealth funds provide unique benefits to the international financial system because, for example, they make needed capital injections into western financial institutions. No one should doubt that the recipients of those capital injections have benefited from them, and in time the citizens of the countries with the funds may benefit as well. However, sovereign wealth funds are not net providers of capital to western financial markets. For the most part, they are merely recyclers of global financial flows. In this respect, they do not differ from central banks and other government-controlled entities or from private sector investors. The only issues are where they invest, how wisely those investments are made, and how accountable the investors are for their decisions.
Here is the whole piece, which is generally quite good. So what is wrong with this passage? It's not attaching enough importance to the idea of gains from trade. If capital has "left" the U.S., it's because there was some gain from that transaction, such as when we buy oil. There's then a subsequent gain if those revenue are invested wisely in the United States. It's not just a wash through "recycling." If you spend some money in stores, and then some people then invest in our company, that's not a wash either.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on August 19, 2008 at 06:21 AM in Economics | Permalink
Comments
I take his point to be slightly different--that SWFs are perfect substitutes for other private or public financial institutions. As a consequence, SWFs provides no service that would not be provided by another financial institution if SWFs did not exist. Thus, whereas American commercial banks recycled petrodollars following the first oil shock, SWFs do the job today . Consequently, I think your criticism is not quite correct.
What he fails to consider is whether SWFs have some institutional advantage (or disadvantage) compared to other private or public institutions. That is, are SWFs better or worse at the job than other possibilities.
Posted by: Thomas at Aug 19, 2008 7:08:51 AM
Good post Tyler. On a somewhat related note, the mistake that you are hitting on here, is what drives me crazy about T. Boone Pickens' "the largest transfer of wealth in human history" nonsense. We send them $700 billion in cash, they send us $700 billion in oil. What wealth transfer?
Posted by: Bob Murphy at Aug 19, 2008 11:21:57 AM