Outsourcing and the Campaign

I've had a little time to reflect on the Bain-outsourcing-Romney stuff. So here are a couple of observations, which I share with the Free Exchange editors at the Economist.
(1) Outsourcing is good on the net, not just for the country receiving the investment, or even some vague global sense. It is welfare-improving for the US in the aggregate.
(2) Outsourcing can be pareto-improving, meaning that not only does it increase income, wealth and efficiency on average, but it is possible to ensure that no one is worse off.
Point (1) implies that, even if you support President Obama, the criticism of outsourcing by itself is misplaced. That includes this criticism by Paul Krugman. We should be outsourcing when it is profitable to do so.
Point (2) is tougher. Basically, it qualifies the political feasibility of (1) by implying that, in order to bring everyone on board with free trade, outsourcing, etc., you need pretty extensive structural adjustment assistance programs also known as the Welfare State. Here, as the Economist correctly points out, we could learn a little something from the 1997 incarnation of Professor Krugman when he says that voters aren't nuanced enough in their understanding of trade and public policy to grasp this subtlety - or care. They know jobs are gone, and US companies are growing operations in China. They win, I lose.
The Economist article points out that Obama could come out with a more nuanced and correct argument. But really, either candidate could take up this mantle and make it part of their platform without abandoning their core values. Mr. Romney, for his part could say, "yes, I am for free markets and outsourcing, and the fact that it puts some folks out of work only highlights the need to reform existing welfare programs so they help people who really want to work." Mr. Obama, instead of spewing protectionist garbage could say, "see, people are hurt by some aspects of free markets and we need social programs like my health care law to make markets work better for everyone" (he could even throw in some of his "shared prosperity" catchphrases).
But neither candidate is doing this. Obama is pretending to be protectionist (when we all know he won't govern that way); Romney is acting like the attacks are simply unfair, which doesn't seem to help much - do we really want a crybaby for a President? Obama's strategy, sadly, is the politically effective one, and I expect to see much more of it through November.

Some Links on International Economics

A very interesting post on the political economy of trade policy. Econbrowser: Thirty Years Ago Today: Racial and ethnic animosity play an important role; however, you'd think politicians would try to veil that dimension more than they do here or here.

Also very interesting, new research on the role of industry fragmentation and global supply chains. Unilateral tariff liberalisation | vox.

How big are the gains from trade? « Trade Diversion: Some research has suggested much smaller gains from trade based on some of the classical models. When one takes a more modern approach (especially accounting for "cross-industry variation in trade elasticities") the gains from trade are as big as they ever were (around 25-45 percent of GDP for the US).

The World Bank has published a new book on migration and remittances: Migration and remittances during the crisis and beyond.

Links on China and Trade

China's economy is slowing to a "mere" 9.1 percent growth, it's slowest in 20 years. Does this bode at all well for the US? Most theories of current accounts would say no. Also, although the nominal exchange rate with China is pretty level recently, the real value of the yen (after inflation) is rising. This suggests rebalancing, which is supported by the fact that China will soon have a trade deficit with the rest of the world (although probably not with the US). I wish politicians (and the public?) would pay more attention to these facts before forging ahead with proposed "retaliatory" (to what?) tariffs against China.

Some links on trade and migration

America's Lost Decade and trade (Free Exchange)
The Great Relocation? (Marginal Revolution)

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.

Some links

Increasing taxes a little and funding health reform may do more good (at least in the short run) than cutting spending. Someone remind folks that tax revenues are already at 50 year lows as a percentage of GDP.

A similar (but maybe a bit less firm) conclusion here.

More similar conclusions from Krugman on modern Keynesianism (on VOX not his hackish blog).

A couple of cool statistics links:

Paydays are a killer?

Billion Prices Project

Some institutional links:

Gender bias and agricultural technology

Cursed by resources or institutions?

Why continuing to be a Royals fan (among other things) is good for me.

Exports are overrated?

Some links on immigration and trade (and a couple on statistics)

So, what we can get from this is: (1) immigrants are favorably selected (relative to education levels in their home countries - nothing new); (2) this is not always a bad thing for the home countries in the long run. It does not lead to the conclusion that immigrants should be deliberately cherry picked by some artificial policy mechanism.
Banking in the US is finally catching up with resources already available to Africa.
Finance and trade: A historical perspective. (Vox)
Gambling: chance or skill? (Freakonomics)
Some interesting polling data on perceptions about homosexuality. (Economist/Democracy in America) Makes me think the "gay marriage trick" won't work in 2012 like it did in 2004.
Semi-random link on self-publishing a book. (Freakonomics)

Some links on trade and immigration

Free Trade Agreements may be good, even if there is trade diversion. This is true, and we have known it theoretically for a while. This post summarizes some empirical evidence supporting it. (Jim Anderson, Vox)
US trade policy and Doha: Multilateralism is less important to US trade policy these days and bilateral agreements are starting to take precedence. Is this good? (Fred Bergsten, Vox)
US trade policy in the 21st century: strategic trade mistakes of the past redux? (Richard Baldwin, Vox, part I; here is part II)
Migration restrictions and the flow of immigrants. It seems plausible that one conclusion from this article is that immigration restrictions do almost nothing to curtail the quantity of immigrants, might even increase the number of immigrants in the US (by lengthening stays of would-be short term or seasonal migrants who now incur higher border crossing costs), and mainly serves to transfer rents to criminals. (Drew Keeling, Vox)
The curious case of the CIS. (Dilip Ratha, People Move)

Some links on trade and immigration

New regulations on remittances (WSJ)
What would really bring a dollar dive? (Chinn) (Answer: "a failure to raise the debt ceiling in a timely fashion")
Free trade agreements and democracy (Vox: Xuepeng Liu)
More on demographics in China and inter-temporal comparative advantage, sorta. (People Move)

Petition of the Candlemakers

From WSJ, via TC at MR:

Candles are one industry in which U.S. producers dominate their home market. The National Candle Association estimates the U.S. market is about $2 billion, with imports accounting for 20% or less of that. Imports have been low since 2004, when “the anti-dumping duties came into play,” said the association’s president, Frederic Contino. That’s when duties for Chinese-made candles entering the U.S. more than doubled to the current 108.3%.

Some international econ links

Trump's trade policy. WTF? More here.
TC on Stolper-Samuelson. I'd like to point out that S-S doesn't directly imply Factor Price Equalization. S-S just identifies the winners and losers; FPE is a stronger result that requires additional assumptions.
Closed borders, by one of my dissertation mentors.

A lot of stuff from VOX on International

Financial Globalization
Services Trade
Study Abroad and Labor Mobility
Hidden Barriers
Trade Slumps: Is this time different? Yes.
The New Elhanan Helpman Book

Links on Trade and Trade Balances

From Vox:
  Real Exchange Rates and "Dutch Disease";
  Intellectual Property Rights, FDI and the WTO.

Some Links on International Economics and other Random Stuff.

In factor endowments models of trade, we usually think of the quantity of land as fixed. Dubai tried to disprove this, but their man-made islands are now sinking. Nature seems to have a better way of proving me wrong. (NYTimes)
An interesting take on the trade deficit with China, which, by the way fits with a simple inter-temporal comparative advantage story. (Economist)
Female Migration and Development. (PeopleMove; also here)

Economists behaving badly. (Ezra Klein)
"Page Numbers are for Wussies." (Cheep Talk)

Some Links on International Econ, and other stuff.

Trade, integration, and political reform in MENA (VOX)
Really? Do we have to block everything? How bout you pass the pro-market stuff, Republicans? (NYTimes)
More people latching onto Uwe Reinhardt's flawed characterization of international economists (World Trade Law)
JLR for now, Tata for later? (Economist)
Second-generation immigrants - problem? (Economist)
Finally, some music. A few seconds from every chart-topper since 1956 (ECC)

An Interesting Take

I hadn't seen much relation of the Wisconsin protests with international trade, but here's an interesting point from the international economic law and policy blog.

The right to collective bargaining is one of the so-called "core labor rights" that the U.S. uses for GSP conditionality, and the 2002 TPA required labor rights to be a negotiating objective in U.S. PTAs.  ...  Article 6 of the US-Jordan FTA, for example, ... requires that each party "strive" to ensure that its laws incorporate freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining.

Will this make us hypocrites? I guess not if you consider the fact that we probably already are, but it won't help.

Links on Arguing for Free Trade and Other Stuff

A simplistic argument for free trade by NG Mankiw; a simplistic response from Uwe Reinhardt; a better response here and here.
The other stuff. Can't resist a few links on the union stuff.
Matt Yglesias on Swedish labor unions:

Swedish labor unions could use their dominant labor market position to increase workers’ compensation by making Swedish firms less profitable than non-Swedish ones, but that would be bad for everyone. What you get instead is a kind of Mirror Universe version of the Chamber of Commerce, a politically powerful institution interested in maximizing the income growth of the median Swede rather than the median Swedish CEO.

This only works because a really high percentage of workers in Nordic countries is unionized.
Menzie Chinn on the fiscal non-problems in Wisconsin.
Finally, Chinn on, well, let's say buyers' remorse:

"I am going to make an effort to speak for myself, and every member of the Wisconsin State Patrol when I say this ... I specifically regret the endorsement of the Wisconsin Trooper's Association for Gov. Scott Walker. I regret the governor's decision to 'endorse' the troopers and inspectors of the Wisconsin State Patrol."

That's Chinn quoting Tracy Fuller, president of the Wisconsin Law Enforcement Association. To this I say, "Really?" I mean they guy campaigned against public sector unions when you supported him. Then again, I can understand a little surprise at a politician who does what he says he'll do.
In other news, it seems as if the governor is testing the water for having the National Guard take over for the bastard union prison guards (at what cost I wonder?).

Some Links on International Economics

I wonder if my students are having trouble finding news articles on international economics for their blog assignment. I'm not.
Trade in intermediate goods and underestimating the gains from trade (Vox).
More on measuring trade flows (WTI).
Opening Japan (again?) (Economist).
Germany's great decade through trade (Economist).
Should the EU ban on seal products be lifted (WTI)?
Somali piracy (and trade costs?) (Economist).
Trade liberalization in South Asia (Vox).
Barriers to remittances (lost gains from migration?) (Peoplemove).
Leaving Tunisia (Reuters).

A Couple of Trade-Related Links

Gains from trade? (The Economist)
Gains from trade talks? (Vox)

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?).