Competition & Deregulation Fight Stagflation Part 2

Sometimes it seems as though there's a counter-argument for every argument; isn't it great! I just finished writing how competition and deregulation was working to prevent inflationary pressures from spiraling out of control and then I read this article that made me rethink my position, again. I still believe that competition and deregulation are in-fact working to keep those pressures under control, but I neglected to consider the effects of rising fuel prices on the extent to which that competition can take place.

There's no doubt that communications technologies enable for a great deal of competition in the services sectors, but that's going to have a lot less of an impact on the manufacturing side of the economy. Ultimately, manufacturers have too get their goods into a market before they can sell them there and the rising cost of oil has made that far more expensive. The result is that domestically produced goods are just a little more attractive and the demand for those goods, as a consequence, is just a little higher. This higher demand for domestic manufacturing empowers laborers just a little more and makes wage-hikes just that much more likely. As I've written before, rising wages is the key influential factor driving inflation.

So where do the scales balance? Good question; it's anyone's guess really. I will say that the forces of competition and deregulation are not going away, but the oil price bubble may very well disappear. What happens then?

Competition & Deregulation Fight Stagflation

I just finished reading an interesting article that has caused me to rethink my position on the state of the economy and where it may be going. I've written before on how the current slowdown resembles what we saw in the '70s and earl '80s, but after reading this article, I'm reconsidering the affects that global competition may have on the ability of the U.S. economy to ever see the sort of rocketing inflation that we say a few decades ago.

It comes down to wages. If wages don't begin to rise (accelerate, actually), then inflation will remain relatively under control. This is an important fact to remember when you consider that a global economy means that nearly every sector, industry and individual business competes with international vendors willing to cut prices and snatch-away customers. The article uses the airline industry as an example, but the same logic could be extended to almost any market. Whereas airline ticket prices rose by more than one-third in the early '80s, they've seen less than a 2% rise even with the unprecedented rise in the cost of fuel. The reason? Competition and deregulation.

There are more airlines, even with all the trouble in the sector, than ever before. Travelers have more choice than ever before. The result is that airlines are left sitting between a rock and a hard place. With the rising cost of inputs to their operations, the decision is no longer whether or not to raise prices, but rather whether or not to continue operations at all. They are no longer able to raise prices because their competition won't. One of any competitor airlines that had been fortunate enough to hedge the cost of fuel earlier will have a cost advantage and will simply assume all customers should its competitors increase their prices. In economic terms, it suggests an inelastic short-term supply curve. What's interesting about this argument is that nowhere have I mentioned wages, which is traditionally considered to be the primary driver of inflationary pressure.

There's competition for jobs too. Just like there are more airlines fighting over travelers, there are more people fighting over jobs. Workers are less able than ever before to request a wage increase. There are fewer labour unions and those that do still exist are less powerful. Moreover, the ability to outsource leaves employers not with the decision to increase wages or lose employees, but rather whether or not to keep employees or outsource operations oversees where costs could be a fraction of what they are locally. The consequence of all this is that rapidly rising inflation may really be a historical artifact.

CNBC's Million Dollar Portfolio Game - One Caveat

Ever wanted to play the stock market, but were too afraid to risk your own money? Virtual stock market games are a great way to learn the fundamentals with real data, real stocks and real news. You don't risk any money - it's like investing with monopoly money. With many of these games you can start as may portfolios as you like to try-out all your different portfolio strategies to see what works best for you. Within week (sometimes days or even hours) you'll know if this is something that interests you or not and, more importantly, you will not have risked your savings to find out.

Well, if you'd like to give this a shot, then there's no better time than the present. CNBC has started its annual Million Dollar Portfolio Challenge today. It's open to all American residents (yes, I know; that doesn't include me) and as long as you're of legal age, then you probably meet the rest of their eligibility requirements. They're giving away some great prizes to the top portfolios each week with the grand prize of $1 million dollars shared among the top portfolios as the conclusion of the challenge. Like I said, if you want to give this sort of thing a shot, then this is a great way to learn and profit.

There's an important caveat to keep in mind: you will not learn sound investment practices by playing such games. Why? Because these are short-term games ...akin to sprints, not marathons. To win this sort of game you'll need to invest in high-volatility (i.e. risky) stocks to get the greatest potential return within the few weeks of the competition. This is obviously not a strategy that anyone would advocate if you were investing with your own money. That said, you're not investing your own money; so, as long you as you keep this caveat in mind, then go for it. Play. Learn. Profit!