The solution is growth (Daron Acemoglu - HBR Blog)? Will growth curb the debt problem or will debt reduction stimulate growth?

A neat randomization technique to facilitate truth-telling (Freakonomics).

As Greenspan says - we'll never be "forced" to default. Greece didn't have this option. Whither Euro? (Financial Times)

The downside of self-regulating occupational licensing boards (Jay Parkinson)

More policy options that would be dominated by a carbon tax. (Freakonomics)

Another way of looking at the value-added problem in trade statistics. Not all of the "Made in China" product's value should be counted as China's exports? But where do the profits really end up? (NYTimes)

I'm guessing the blockquote here is toungue-in-cheek. (Caplan) I worry about students who only learn a particular algorithm for applying knowledge to specific situations. Those students will be easily replaced by computers. Learn to think.

Commodity Prices

I generally don't read Krugman much anymore. This post, on commodity prices, seems reasonable. Specifically, on food prices (which some have pointed to as evidence that QE has been inflationary):

this is straightforward supply and demand. Demand may be up to some
extent because of that emerging-market boom. But if you look at the FAO reports
it becomes clear that the key thing for cereals prices is that
production is down in advanced countries, largely owing to terrible
weather.

But if it were coming from monetary pressure, it would likely be a demand-side pull rather than a cost-side push. Also, it might be temporary, since it has to do with weather (unless it is also linked to longer-term climate change).

What about those gas prices? Tyler Cowen is saying that this time it is different, and that there will probably be a change in the long-term trend in energy prices in the coming years. (Note: the long term trend in real resource prices has been negative since about the start of the 20th century.) Yglesias largely agrees. The theory is that during previous increases in price, growth in demand was led by technological innovation, which made us richer, but also better able to pull stuff out of the earth. During current price increases, growth in demand has been led by countries catching up (China and India, for example), and therefore less likely to be accompanied by adjustments on both supply side (better extraction) and demand side (enhanced efficiency). 

They may be right, especially in the short and medium run, but I'm skeptical for a few reasons. First, we've heard the Malthusian trap story before, and it's turned out to be false each time so far. Second, I'm not entirely convinced that their history is spot-on; during previous spikes there was also considerable catch-up growth in Southeast Asia (in fact, the 60s and 70s are a textbook example of "catch-up" growth for countries like Japan, South Korea, and other "Asian Tigers"). Third, prices are incentives, and thus if there is a significant increase in the real price of resources, there is likely to be a supply-side adjustment of some sort, including a shift to new sources of energy (nuclear?). Policy will also play a role in incentives (carbon tax?).

Some links: Climate, China Trade, and Inefficiency

Exchange rates (if relevant in the first place) aren't the whole story with China (Economix)
Rebalancing (Brookings)
Green energy won't create jobs (Economix)
Green energy shouldn't be used to create jobs (Free Exchange) Right. A carbon tax (or if an international mechanism can be designed, cap and trade) would nudge the market to do the job with fewer unintended consequences.
Inefficiency in the tax code; good for somebody (Economix)

Some Links, Featuring Tourette's, Dilbert, and a Baseball Mystery

Advantages to Tourette's (British Psychological Society HT: TC @ MR)?
Dilbert, "cheaper" copies, and teaching managers about opportunity cost (Freakonomics).
Why are there so many power-hitting middle infielders these days (Economix)?
A couple of links on "cap and trade" vs. the carbon tax (Economix and Economist)
Libertarianism explained: a review of Jeffrey Miron's "Libertarianism, from A to Z." (Economix). Here is an interesting excerpt:

Professor Miron writes that “antipoverty spending is the most defensible kind of redistribution,” because “the goal of this redistribution – helping the poor – is reasonable and the costs of a well-designed limited antipoverty program (e.g., a negative income tax set on a state-by-state basis) are modest.”

Another interesting quotation on libertarianism (From Raj Pate's "The Value of Nothing"; HT to Atin Basu and Greg Lippiatt):

"There are two novels that can transform a 14 year old kid's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shurgged. One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book about orcs."  

Some Links, Featuring Conservatives for Higher Taxes, and Evil Cul-de-Sacs

Conservatives for Higher Taxes (Economix)
Cul-de-Sacs may not be evil but they are inefficient (Infrastruturist)
Facebook's progression of suckiness over the years (AllFacebook)
Awesome Dinosaur shirt for kids
Which type of cognitive bias are you? (via Freakonomics)
No Reservations (more here)
Gas tax or hybrid subsidies? Free Exchange makes economic sense of why a gas tax is better for the environment.

Some Links, Including a couple of cool graphs

Gas price vs. miles driven over time (NY Times).














Explanations of grade inflation that can be ruled out: Hard work (Babcock & Marks, 2008).












China bubble watch (MR).

Dueling Fallacies

This Free Exchange piece does a good job of confronting the "Broken Window Fallacy" anti-stimulus argument. To be sure, some of the "shovel-ready" projects funded by the stimulus are a case of solutions in desperate search of a problem (i.e. there's nothing wrong but we'll fix it anyway). But some of the things are things that need fixing anyway and are things that are will only be fixed with help from a little 'nudge'. In other words, the current owners of some buildings might have installed better windows, but for the fact that the crappy window they have is already there and paid for - it's the "Sunk Cost Fallacy" and I'm starting to feel like I'm trapped in it with my current car, but that's another story.
As RA puts it:

can we really say, in a world in which the sunk cost fallacy has power, that the
broken windows fallacy is a fallacy? Let's say my old window is a cruddy window,
and I would derive net benefits from replacing it, but I am reluctant to because
I've already paid for the original window and throwing it out would seem like a
waste. If some delinquent then throws a rock through my window, I'm made better
off.

Trust me, I've hoped more than once on my drive home the last few weeks, "boy, wouldn't it be nice if some redneck rearended me just enough to total my car?" Or, since I'm theoretically gonna save tons with compact flourescent bulbs, why haven't I replaced my incandescents?

Random Links

1. The economists: coal is cheap and getting cheaper, so subsidize solar (note: they also support a carbon tax).
2. Trade is on the downturn. Does it matter that much?
3. Export-enhancing immigration.
4. Ronald Coase, still one of the best at age 99 (and I don't even hold the narrow-mindedness of the rest of the Chicago School against him).
5. Liberal arts education: a long-term investment.
6. If a corporation can have free speech, can it also run for office?

Green Jobs are More than Broken windows

A number of bloggers (see here or here or here) in the econoblogoshpere have been relating green jobs to the parable of the broken window, by Frederic Bastiat:

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation—"It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"
Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.
Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade—that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs—I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.

It seems that the comparison of using stimulus dollars for green investments to broken windows is akin to making a type III error: giving the right answer to the wrong question. No, green investments by the public sector will not increase the long-run number of jobs, and they may have some unintended consequences if future harm is not priced with a tax or an auction. However, short-term public sector jobs will reduce the pain of the current recession by reducing overall employment in the short term. Then the question is what the best thing to do is, i.e. "are green jobs better than the next best alternative for public funds?" To many the answer is "yes." Investments made now to clean up the environment and improve our energy infrastructure will do a lot to increase welfare even if that welfare is not well measured by the metrics of GDP and employment. The "broken windows" analogy also frames the debate in a misleading way. If the analogy is apt, then it must be the case that the "windows" are already "broken" and the cleanup investments are just paying the tab for the vandalism of past generations.

Should OPEC be Compensated?

Economically, there is no argument for giving oil exporters a handout to compensate for our ability to reduce our own demand, thus driving down the price. Remember, they don't give us a kickback for all of their supply-reducing behavior that drives up the price. But, there might be some political reasons to make such a side-payment.

"Locavorism" and the Environment

"Buying local" is not necessarily buying green:

...lamb raised on New Zealand’s clover-choked pastures and shipped 11,000 miles by boat to Britain produced 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton while British lamb produced 6,280 pounds of carbon dioxide per ton, in part because poorer British pastures force farmers to use feed. In other words, it is four times more energy-efficient for Londoners to buy lamb imported from the other side of the world than to buy it from a producer in their backyard.

Nor is knowing the producer necessarily good for the community:

Historically, such personalized economic transactions were the norm, but they were inherently fraught with risk and tension. In colonial America — a place I’ve studied in some depth — all markets were initially driven by face-to-face interaction. It should come as no surprise that things could get, well, personal. Markets were intensely competitive and exclusive. Everyone knew everyone. And that was often the problem. The court records of colonial New England are replete with personal market transactions gone awry.

Food for thought, so to speak. Trade is good.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies

This graph from David Roberts is somewhat misleading (for example, it's hard to tell if magnitude is measured as radius from the origin or total area and I'd like to see a breakdown per BTU or something), but it has a powerful point: We subsidize "dirty energy" more than we subsidize "clean energy" in the aggregate. Why not, before getting into a big brew-ha-ha over cap-and-trade, remove the implicit and explicit subsidies for making the environment worse-off?

Hmmm

Charging your cell out of thin air?

Trucks and Trade

Anyone know that there is a 25% tariff on "motor vehicles for the transport of goods" and the tariff on regular autos is just 2.5%? Check this out. Maybe that's also keeping us from showing much real innovation in the auto industry generally. Can't make a better hybrid? Make more gas-guzzling trucks with the complements of tariff protection.

It also makes me more frustrated about trucks. I've always wanted some sort of fuel-inefficiency tax (instead of binding restrictions) on gas-guzzlers, especially trucks. The response I get is that well, we can't tax commercial trucks more than passenger cars because farmers and other workin folks use them - it's not "fair!" Well, now it turns out we ALREADY have a higher tax on pickemup trucks than cars, so all we'd really have to do to apply the appropriate "incentives" (in this case sticks) to nudge production is: (1) make the tax nondiscriminating (apply equally to foreign and domestic producers instead of a tariff); (2) progressively tax inefficient cars at higher rates up in reverse proportion to their mpg rating and emissions.

Darfur as a harbinger

Jeffrey Sachs has already illustrated the fact that the conflict and genocide in Darfur is largely a conflict over control of a single strategic natural resource. Not diamonds, not oil - water. Well, expect more crises of like kind. Just take this story in this week's Economist. Over 50 years our population has increased by a factor of 2.25. Water use has increased by a factor of 3. Diets have become more protein-intensive; therfore more water-intensive. Climate change has made weather patterns more extreme and less predictable while melting the icecaps. When you think about how much fighting is done over luxuries like diamonds and oil, just imagine what happens when folks need run short on water, which we have treated as free. The diamond-water paradox may play itself out not to be a paradox one day after all.

Making more Ethanol from Less Corn

Another example of technological innovation around the margins (and the institutions that support it) working to keep us from falling into the Malthusian trap. I'm not a big ethanol fan, but things that can be done to make waste byproducts more useful (e.g. the building of the first cellulose ethanol plant) to help in the short run, might just help us get closer to a long-run solution with wind, solar, geothermal, etc.

This is Interesting

I ran into this via the Green, Inc. blog. Basic idea: which states offer tax breaks for housholds that get renewable energy fixtures for their own use? Find your state and see what's out there.

Bad things that Came out of the Seventies (other than Disco)

I heard this on "All things considered" yesterday.

We used to have this urban-planning idea that we'd have these pockets of pure-residential areas that had a buffer from almost purely commercial areas known as "drivable suburbia" or "edge cities." In the seventies,people wanted to live in little cul-de-sacs of living and concrete jungles of shopping, commerce, and bigass parking lots somewhere else. I remember in the late eighties our neighborhood had huge opposition to the building of a new commercial area near our housing development because it would bring noise and crime and (gasp!) more people.

I wish I could say this is the way the market had things turn out, but that would be hooey. (I like to say hooey now because the word I really want to say makes the little green men cry.) It was carried about using subsidies and political lobbies that worked to have things zoned the way they thought best suited their views. Some might call that democracy or "majority rule" but that would be of equal portion of hooey, since most people who thought it to be a bad idea probably didn't care as much to organize and petition the local government as the "nimby"-ites (Not In My Back Yard, "nimby").

Now, some folks are having buyers remorse. Now, we want shorter commutes, closer access to jobs, groceries, routine shopping, and even public transportation (?) and people aren't so sure that driving 20-30 minutes is the best way to go about it. Maybe in fifty years when we have flying cars that run on banana peels and composted garbage we'll want to go back to our edge cities.

The Auto Bailout, Trade, and Policy Specificity

As a trade economist, there is exactly one thing that could convince me that a subsidy to the auto industry is worthwhile, and it's this: Give them a direct subsidy and tear down all of the trade restrictions on foreign-made autos. That way, we could increase the competitiveness of the MARKET, and increase the chances that the monies will be used productively, rather than squandered on short-sighted SUV promotions that would keep us in the energy use gluttony of the last 20 years.

I Told You So

I posted this June 20.

I dunno, maybe someone else has already gone out on this limb, but have a look at this. I'm to cowardly to make it a prediction, but I would not be shocked one bit if gasoline is back to $3.00 within the next year.

Mark it, dude.

June 20, 2008:
............Reg.....Mid...Prem.
Curr. Avg..$4.075 $4.326 $4.482
Yesterday..$4.073 $4.325 $4.481
Month Ago..$3.807 $4.043 $4.188
1 Year Ago.$2.996 $3.181 $3.297

Data for today, and in less than half the time I predicted:

............Reg.....Mid...Prem.
Curr. Avg..$2.923 $3.049 $4.482
Yesterday..$2.954 $3.081 $3.174
Month Ago..$3.777 $3.939 $4.059
1 Year Ago.$2.824 $2.999 $3.107