Ethanol, Food Prices, and More Bullshit

Virginians love to BM&G about how the corn conspiracy and ethanol subsidies are driving up the price of a steak and driving down demand for other locally-produced commodities from beef to coal. I say let 'em - they're just flat wrong.

There's a new study out on the increased food prices we're seeing, as summarized by the NYTIMES (the official summary of the OECD/UN report can be accessed here). The overall impact of ethanol on food price increases seen recently is about 2-3%. So, that loaf of pound of hamburger that went up by about a quarter at the grocery store had about a penny to do with ethanol. Anyway, as it turns out the reason food prices are rising is not this complicated, general-equilibrium of energy, housing and ethanol, but one of simple supply and demand (mostly just demand) in the food market alone. Basically, the reason food prices are rising is because people around the world are busting out of poverty and can now afford higher quantities and quality of food (which, by the way, is a GOOD thing). See, most of the corn in the US goes to cattle feed. Therefore as people get richer and consume more protein, badda-bing! Higher corn prices, which leads to higher plantings of corn relative to non-feed grains (soybeans, wheat, etc.) and those prices rise accordingly.

If you're looking to goat the government for grain prices in the US, look first at sugar policy. Sugar policy affects corn prices much more than ethanol for one simple reason: After feed grain, the highest end-use of corn is high-fructose syrup. Understanding this requires a pretty high-tech econometric techinique: Drink a Coke (you COULD drink a Pepsi and reach the same empirical conclusion, but I wouldn't recommend it), then look at the label. Then, go to Europe, and repeat. The second ingredient on the US can (after H2O) is high fructose CORN syrup; on the European can it is SUGAR. Ever wonder about this? Everywhere else it's cheaper and to put sugar in as the main sweetner in most things, but here it's not because the in the 1930s the us put a quota on sugar imported to the US, mostly to keep CUBA friendly (see how well that worked???).

Now the Sugar quota has a second, indirect effect on prices. You see, sugar isn't just a better way to sweeten drinks, IT'S ALSO MORE EFFECTIVE FOR MAKING ETHANOL! To make ethanol you need to start with SUGAR! In the US, guess what the main ingredient used to make the sugar for ethanol is! CORN (NOT actual SUGAR)! Ever wonder why Brazil is making and using ethanol more efficiently and with fewer subsidies? BECAUSE THEY MAKE IT SMARTER THAN WE DO!

Recycling is Still Garbage...For Now

I've always kinda liked this old article, entitled "Recycling is Garbage" from the NYTIMES on recycling. There's plenty to dispute in such cocktail-napkin calculations of such important stuff, but it hits it head-on (apply directly to the forehead): Recycling is no free lunch. In fact taking into account land prices, alternative uses of resources, and energy burned in recycling, it is usually more costly (even in environmental terms) to recycle than it is to pitch things like glass and plastic. Paper and aluminum usually do better in terms of cost-effectivness and energy use. In fact, given the higher energy use and carbon footprint of recycling we might be shooting ourselves in the proverbial foot.
But, in a long-run sense, maybe doing all that recycling earlier is beginning to pay off. Technologies for actually doing the job are improving and the NYTIMES now touts: "In Economic Terms, Recycling Almost Pays" (keyword: almost). Anyway, it teaches us to: 1. be sceptical of the "free lunch", and; 2. think dynamically and long-run, not short run. (Similar arguments can be made for ethanol, by the way: Initially we were burning more energy to make ethanol than we were getting out of it, now we've tipped that, and it's beginning to pay for itself. However, in the case of ethanol, who are we really kidding to think that it is a best long-run solution?)

Wire Hangers and Rubber Rooms

Sooo, I always like to cite a couple of back-of-the envelope calculations (as well as harder-core ones) about the gains from trade. 6-8 years ago there was something floating around about the gains from trade that put it at about $50-60,000 per job saved. So we could have levied a small non-discriminatory consumption tax on all goods sold (regardless of country of origin), redistributed every cent to those "hard working ... American" (wink-wink) that would have been laid off by the "great sucking sound" and we'd all have a little more than we did with the trade restrictions.

Another story has to do with rubber rooms. Because of labor obligations, most US-located assembly plants for US-label cars "employ" a certain number of workers in rubber rooms, where they essentially drink coffee and... (???).

But check this one out. In the US wire-hanger industry about 250, er, Americans are currently employed, facing competition (mostly from China) and are protected by a tariff. The Economists blogging staff estimates that the cost of the tariff to US dry-cleaning firms is about $212,000 per job saved.

The Energy (Sub)Burble

Check this out from Krugmania... Keep in mind this is about Sydney, not Dallas, but it tells us a lot about the problems of urban planning in the US. Then there's this article about Los Angeles... Sooo, it got me thinking about an energy-economics article from a few years ago in the Quarterly Review of Economics & Finance (I have it in my office but I'm on the road now) that basically said that we are almost completely unresponsive in our long-term capital investments to the current price of fuel, but more responsive to the real historic high price. We only hit historic highs for gasoline a few months ago, so sometime in the next 10-15 years we might be beginning to reorganize our lives to manage the prices we're seeing now (and that's the good news...).

Cool It!

Just when I thought I was saving the earth by taking most of my news from online sources instead of getting print subscriptions to most things, I had to see this article. I hate it when being well-informed about things makes you think carefully and comprehensively about them. There has to be some quick easy free-lunch out there like a gas holiday that will make all of our problems go away...

Canary in the Coal Mine

It's always good to be on our toes and be in this economic struggle of scarcity, but let's not lose our heads. I've been saying it for a while. In Malthus' time of writing his Essay on the Principle of Population, it was that we would run out of the ability to feed our growing population. Then, it was that we would run out of coal in the late 1800s and that we would run out of oil in the 1970s. Now, we worry about Oil and Food, and this week the Economist Magazine urges us to study history more carefully and not go nuts. There is no imminent danger of running out of oil; there is no imminent danger of running out of fuels to run our economies; there is no imminent danger of running out of food. There is a greater risk from climate change than from either of these problems, and we can probably even come up with clever ways of managing through that with some innovations in technology.

Life is good.

No Monopoly on Stupid

Once upon a time there was a debate between certain Republicans and Democrats about a handful of barrels of oil. One side puffed its populist chest out and claimed how much it would help the honest workin' man by lowering the price at the pump. The other side took a careful look at the proposal and keenly pointed out that it would make almost no impact on the world price of oil. Both side seemed to have ulterior political motives at heart. Heard this story before? It took place in 2000 and the debate was over the opening of ANWR in Alaska to drilling for oil. George W. Bush on the one side claimed that releasing the reserve to drilling would push the price of oil down and help good ole workin folks; Al Gore on the other side claimed that it would have little or no effect on oil. Bush was receiving money and political support from the oil lobby who stood to gain from the deregulation of drilling and the subsidized pipeline; Gore was receiving money and political support from environmental lobbies who opposed all forms of environmental damage.

Now the roles are reversed as the debate rages over the strategic oil reserves. Bush is out there claiming that the price would go unaffected; democrats are making wild claims about how much halting the stockpiling of oil will save blue-collar Americans. The release of the oil (or the stopping of its stockpiling) would be mildly detrimental to the oil lobby by slightly reducing the demand for their output; passing the moratorium would give the appearance that the democrats have done "something."

Bottom line: Like I've always said, "no political party has a monopoly on stupid economic ideas." Its corollary is probably that when they stumble on a good one it's either unintentional or for the wrong reasons. When will folks realize that if oil is as scarce as some claim then higher prices are the appropriate outcome?

The Great Contrivance

I thought this article from a few months ago was interesting, and frustrating. People will lobby for anything – even the price of gold. I just don't get it. We don't back our internationally-exchanged currencies with gold because we've seen how it can, at times, put internal equilibrium on a flimsy house of cards, yet we hold gold in our vaults. Still more confusingly, we let the world gold council lobby the IMF, World Bank, and even individual governments to further their own interests and prevent the further sale of sovereign gold reserves (something that would depreciate the market price of gold) - successfully. Some of the things the World Bank and IMF did to try to bring transparency, credibility and market reforms to the countries the lent to was very helpful, but I can't imagine why anyone should give a rat's patoot about gold in a post-Bretton-Woods world.

Cases like this is what lead the "antiglobalizers" to feel as if there's a vast conspiracy against the developing world. When the ideology of the IMF and World Bank changed in the 1980s, it seems like all we really did was trade one form of corruption (one that was known) for another (that was shrouded in "credibility" and "austerity"). The strange habits of these institutions in these areas discredits unambiguously win-win reforms like trade liberalization and distorts public opinion against globalization.

Bill O'Reilly goes nuts on Inside Edition

Normally I try to post things that are more constructive than this, but I needed something fun today. Bill-O going nuts is too much to pass up.

Happy Cows and Bullshit

Seen the Happy Cow Commercials? Happy cows may create better cheese, but the ads seem to imply (no, state) that happy cows come from California, mainly because it's so much warmer on average than it is in Wisconsin (doncha-no?). Don't be fooled!

Numerous studies show that cows are happy at much lower temperatures than humans are. Ideal temperatures for cows in terms of comfort and milk output range in the 50's (the range strictly for milk output is 41-77 according to some studies like this one). Cows are much more burdened by hotter temperatures in terms of comfort because they expend a lot more energy digesting their food than humans (or even cats or dogs), which creates a lot of heat. Cows in temperatures above 80 degrees Fahrenheit produced around 25-30% less milk than cows in much cooler temperatures. On the low end of the scale it seems that the main concern for conditions that really hurts the cows and their productivity are: (1) wind, and; (2) teat frostbite (usually isn't a problem until temperatures drop below single-digits).

Better yet, this is a great example of comparative advantage. Even if cows in Collie-fornya are more productive in the absolute sense, it seems that Wisconsin or Vermont or Ohio would be better-suited for dairies anyway, on the basis of the basic Ricardian model of trade. If California and Wisconsin can both produce either wine or cheese, and California's land and labor resources are better-suited for both, that wouldn't mean that California would ideally end up producing both, or that Wisconsin would produce neither. Even if we concede the point that Cows like warmer climes (which is not clear cut at all), then we would still be better off if California did not try to promote and export its cheese, because there are higher returns for them in the wine sector. In other words, grapes are pickier about cold weather than cows are. And there you have a big bright example of comparative advantage at work.

Have a good summer, kids.

Scooped?

Sometimes it's frustrating for economists. We revel in the fact that we can pin down theoretical proposals in an airtight mathematical argument, and test them with some of the most sophisticated statistical techiniques. Even as we toil in the fuzzy world of "social" science, we push for and challenge the other social sciences to be "harder" in their scientific approaches, and we're just arrogant enough to think that we're better at what "they" (political scientists, sociologists, etc.) do than "they" themselves are. It's not surprising then that "we" get so jealous when one of "them" gets all the attention for saying what we've been saying – studying, measuring and quantifying – for quite some time.

That's why I'm jealous of Fareed Zakaria this week. His feature article this week has the indifference one would normally expect from an economist on the issue of "The Rise of the Rest." The nuts and bolts of it is that when you pose the question of rising China and India, offshoring, growth in Africa, and declines in certain manufacturing sectors of the U.S., the typical economist like myself says "So what?" I would then usually go into some boring, but well-vetted explanation of comparative advantage, non-zero-sum games, obscure empirical facts, and nearly put my audience to sleep.

Then here comes this… journalist, who has his fancy "words" (much like I have my fancy "models") and he gets the limelight. It's disgusting really. We do all the hard work, howl at the moon to anyone who might listen, and in swoops this very bright wise guy and publishes it all in a sexy multi-page spread in Newsweek. But, that's the way it goes. Bottom line: the rest of the world's rise is not our loss. In fact if the rest of the world has greater prosperity and economic freedoms, then the influence of extremist factions will probably wane, which is a win-win. But don't take my word for it – go to the library and read Mr. Zakaria's version – his way sounds better (jerk).

No Trust in the Invisible Hand

People out there seem to have the misconception that Adam Smith had a lot of faith and confidence in the self-interested actions of individuals in the free market. A more realistic way of summarizing the Wealth of Nations, as PJ O'Rourke might put it, is that Smith had even less faith in politicians and bureaucrats. In fact, from Smith's Moral Sentiments it's pretty clear that he trusted a businessman about as far as he could throw one and didn't think that businessmen should be allowed to do so much as have a cup of tea together.

So how do we manage collusion and cartels? The European model usually involved an adversarial process – the government investigates and anyone and everyone touching the misdeed is prosecuted with the full force of the law. The new model, coming from the US and what it has learned from Enron and other scandals involves protecting and helping whistle-blowers. What this may do, more than anything, is help the investigators know what exactly it is that they should be looking for when they go in, which is the lesson now being learned by British regulators.

Getting the incentives right is important, which means that on the one hand regulators need to help and give protection to the informers, but also that the pendulum not be allowed to swing too far the other way. In other markets where Consumer Protection has become involved the incentives have been skewed to the point where frivolous accusations cloud the investigative process and discredit the government's involvement in the monitoring process. Such has been the case in Consumer Protection areas from medical malpractice to spilled coffee.

Dumb and Dumber

Usually, the empirical impact of a policy proposal on relative prices or incentives has at least some bearing on its efficacy. In the case of the Gas Tax Holiday proposed by Hillary Clinton, it doesn't. Simply put, this proposal is a lose-lose. Let me explain.

If you remove the tax on gasoline for the summer, the policy will either reduce the pump-price of gasoline, or it won't. If it does, then by all accounts it will benefit average users by $70, using the most generous estimates of the Clinton campaign (which she even admits to some extent defies the estimates of the "quote-unquote experts" – and that would be spread out over all three months of the holiday). But wouldn't this contradict the other goals of Ms. Clinton's platform? Wouldn't it (among other things) make us more dependent on foreign oil, make the terrorists richer, encourage people to continue driving at their current levels, increase emissions, and create a strain on the federal budget in a time of unprecedented deficits?

But, OK. Demand for oil is pretty inelastic. Maybe it won't affect the price at all. But wait, since the price would then be unaffected, wouldn't that raise share of the end-user price that the private suppliers get, increase the record profits of gas companies, increase the revenues of oil-rich regimes that support terror, have no impact on households, and still create a strain on the federal budget in a time of unprecedented deficits?

In the end, we all lose. Another reason not to vote for a desperate lying woman who thinks she is entitled to the nomination because she stuck by her philandering husband and doesn't even have an economist heading her economic policy team of advisers.

Happy holidays.

The Gains from Trade and Migration

I've always told my class that the gains from trade are large, about ten years ago (dating myself here) people were estimating the welfare costs of trade restrictions in the United States to be about $55,000 per job saved, assuming that the short run job losses literally vanish … forever… It puts a little perspective on the trade gains and welfare losses from restricting trade.

I've always believed the gains from migration to be smaller, but still positive. For example, some studies estimate the per capita gains for native US citizens to be about 0.25%, and a fair argument could be made that migration to the US is much more disruptive to the distribution of income than trade is. What's left out of this calculus is the huuuuuuge benefit per capita to the world on the whole, and to developing countries in particular.

Last week's Economist discusses this issue, citing an article by Kym Anderson and L. Alan Winters. What surprised me was that they estimate the global gains from migration to be much larger than the global gains from trade. The authors cite models that have predicted the gains from trade to be around $300billion per year worldwide. Similar techniques estimate the gains from just 3% of the worlds workforce migrating across borders to be about $675billion per year by 2025. These numbers are mind-boggling, especially if you consider the fact that just 3% of the world population currently resides in a country other than the one in which they were born – with existing controls and restrictions on immigration. So, taking the combined gains from trade and migration, we're basically looking at welfare gains of about a trillion, or about $150 per person per year – a sum that's far from trivial for the 60% of the world's population living on less than $2 a day.

Not only that, but the article mentions that the gains from trade of $300billion may be understating things. Computational models estimate the global cost of trade restrictions to be as high as $2.5 trillion.

Getting Tanked on French Air

Boeing's steamed this week (and for that matter, since early March) over recent developments in the Air Force's contracts for new midair refueling tankers. Basically, their beef is that that the Air Force awarded a 35 billion dollar procurement contract for new tankers to replace the KC-135 (which, as it turns out my father piloted). The subtleties of their complaint accuse Airbus/Northrop (parented by EADS) of insider trading and that there were illegal actions in the procurement of the contract. There couldn't be a thicker slice of baloney in the books.

Procurement contracts for government spending are one of the most common non-tariff barriers employed by the United States and countries in Europe (ever see a state trooper driving a Honda instead of a Crown Vic?). So if they can pitch a fit and claim wrongdoing in some way, they will. I'm a little surprised, however, that they tried to be creative by alleging illegal trading practice instead of invoking the usual "American Jobs" argument (perhaps because Airbus is going to be doing most of the assembly that normally occurs in France at plants in Alabama, USA). This shows some real ingenuity in the lobbying process! What's funny is that if anyone has insider status for such contracts, it's the Boeings and Lockheeds, not the Airbuses and Embratels of the industry.

Export Taxes and Hunger

Last week I lectured on trade policy to my undergrads. I mentioned that the United States Constitution prohibits Export Taxes, and I got a predictable response. "Why would a government want to tax exports?" one clever student asked. I used it (as was my intention) to explain the concept of Lerner Symmetry, which basically illustrates that in terms of relative prices, output and welfare, an export duty is equivalent to an import tariff in the way it affects (damages) an economy. The basic idea is that both of these instruments limit trade and so it doesn't matter which end you limit it from: coming or going. A tariff de facto restricts exports as well as imports. I then gave a couple of examples of how countries use export taxes to advantages in a similar way to tariffs: for example, when the US threatened tariffs if Canada didn't limit soft lumber exports, the Canadians brilliantly achieved the limitation with a tax on exports. The net result was the same as if the US had imposed the tariff, except the Canadian government got the tax revenue instead of Uncle Sam.

The more real answer is that once a politician gets something in his (her) head that something is a good idea for accomplishing some political end, there's virtually no stopping him. No matter how noble the cause, politics can be pretty nasty about finding a way to blunder it, but it's not always their own fault. Developing countries have been applying duties for some time now on food exports, with the goal of retaining greater quantities of food for a hungry domestic population. The issue was discussed in this week's Economist. But the question is: "Does this do the job?" In short, yes, if Lerner symmetry holds theoretically. The whole point behind these policies, and behind the principle of Lerner Symmetry is that the change will not impact the world price much. In effect, in order for producers to continue exporting with the duty, the world price must be able to cover the domestic costs (domestic market price) plus the tax (otherwise, continue supplying the domestic market to avoid the tax). So, whereas taxes on imports increase the domestic price of imports, taxes on exports decrease the domestic price of the exported good. It is exactly this that policymakers rely upon when they impose such a "recipe for trouble" on the economy. Sure the adverse effects outweigh the good they do, but the duties do make food cheaper. And, conveniently for a eggheaded economist like me, they illustrate and rely upon a theorem that seems counterintuitive at first blush.

Basically, the policies boil down to a second-best solution: they do the job, but of all the options that could do it, trade taxes are among the worst. Better would be to subsidize consumption directly, perhaps by taxing non-food goods and transferring the revenues to poorer households in the form of in-kind transfers. The reason the duties are laid on, the Economist correctly points out, is political expedience, but I think that this keen observation oversimplifies the issue. Many countries have extreme difficulties collecting taxes other than those from trade, and many solutions that would be best solved by direct subsidies are often more than inexpedient; they're infeasible. In nerdy terms, there's an important political constraint that the writers at the Economist isn't taking into account. Then again who am I but a bookish economist who only knows abstract inapplicable theories?

Free Trade and the Liberal Bourgeoisies

I blogged last week about two groups cited as opposing free trade. The first were the working class of developed countries – this group is correctly concerned about their own jobs, incomes, families, and livelihoods. Although trade is good overall, it hurts some groups because the gains are uneven, and this group is the most likely to suffer in the short run.

The second group consisted of "liberal hippies" who are sort of caricatured as English professors (no offense intended to the English professors in my own college) and their idealistic young students. Their ideas are romantic, and their ends are admirable and include: reducing global poverty, saving the environment, ending armed conflict in the globe, child labor, gender and racial discrimination (er, reducing them, that is), and so on. Their means for accomplishing them on the other hand are somewhere between self-conflicting and patently stupid because they almost always include imposing trade restrictions on countries who appear to be behaving in an unsatisfactory way or tying these issues to trade negotiations. Oh, what a tangled web they weave…

Let me start though with the empirical evidence on such issues:

Poverty: With a few exceptions, trade has been found to alleviate poverty in most countries that are "open." Viet Nam is a good example, where textile industries boomed as a result of trade, which was paired with the adoption of better technologies in the rice sector and a win-win or poor families. Here's another story from NPR on China, and a complementary piece, also from NPR. It's an interesting tale of factories in China shutting down, which seems sad at first, but digging deeper, much of the jobs lost are due to the fact that labor markets are becoming more competitive, workers are seeking jobs with other firms, and wages and labor standards are increasing.

Environment: The effect of trade on the environment is tough to pin down. The only thing that can really be said is that assuming trade leads to greater productivity, higher incomes and a "growth spurt" in developing countries, then it will also lead to increased demand for energy resources, and put greater strain on the environment. There are two problems with this proposition. First, even if it is valid, liberal hippies have to concede the point on poverty to make it true. If trade leads to growth and increases household consumption of carbon-emitting fuels, then it is probably because they are less poor. To restrict trade would be to deny poor families the opportunities that greater wealth brings and we would be inflicting poverty on 60% of the world's population in an attempt to put a band-aid on environmental harm. Second, the proposition above assumes that with growth these economies will stupidly continue to use the same harmful technologies and not adopt cleaner ones. Even China has recognized that they need to resolve this issue, with an increasing number of "zero energy/zero emissions" skyscrapers being built and carbon capture technology being better investigated.

Child Labor, Social Issues, etc.: Globalization brings these issues more to our attention than anything else. These things have always been problems, but they have been greater problems in closed countries, and in poorer countries. Even the United States and Britain, when they were first industrializing, struggled with problems of child labor and various forms of wage and employment discrimination. These problems tend to be more effectively alleviated by extending economic freedom, which is what openness to trade does, not denying it, which is what restrictions do.

A good book on the "human face" of globalization is In Defense of Globalization by Jagdish Bhagwati. It should be required reading for anyone considering opening their pieholes on the topic of trade and globalization.

It's actually going to be a fun week – I see two good articles on trade and globalization in this week's Economist, so you'll get to hear my thoughts on them.

Bang

Following the Market

Prices serve their purpose! If you want people to conserve gas, let the price go up. (Further, some research suggests to let it push past historical highs if you really want changes in fixed investments like automobiles and furnaces, etc. to make the conservation behavior more permanent.)

Check this out from the New York Times. America's Biggest news publication, USA Today, has stopped following the campaign busses on the campaign trail. Which is what economists have been saying all along – if oil is truly scarce (or costly to the environment) then the price should be allowed to climb to let the market ration it to valuable users. In this case we get a double-benefit: less gas consumed and fewer voices chattering about the election! Yipee!

Bang

The Chasm between Trade Economists and the Public

Arrogant economists (myself included) too often talk down to the working public about the gains from trade. Take this, from a New York Times Article by Gregory Mankiw:

NO issue divides economists and mere Muggles more than the debate over globalization and international trade. Where the high priests of the dismal science see opportunity through the magic of the market's invisible hand, Joe Sixpack sees a threat to his livelihood. This gap in perspective grows especially wide whenever the economy experiences short-run difficulties, as it is now.

Now, if I just lost my middle class job, and met this guy in a bar, I'd probably call him an asshole and punch him in the nose. It points out two things about economists: 1. We are arrogant S.O.B.'s, and; 2. We have an awkward sense of humor. I think his point would be more well-taken if he were more deprecating of economists, like so:

NO issue divides pinheaded economists and working class heroes more than the debate over globalization and international trade.

In either case, the globalization debate is trivialized by viewing it this way. First, there are multiple groups in opposition to trade and outsourcing. First you have the "working class heroes" who work hard, earn their keep, and view their jobs as under attack. This group tends to be socially conservative, vote republican (especially as the influence of unions has waned in their ability to prop up democratic candidates) have 2.2 kids to worry about, and be influenced by their own interests (with some help from Lou Dobbs). These folks want a better life for their children. Secondly, there is the "liberal hippie" crowd. This group opposes globalization for a diversity of reasons including a genuine concern for workers in foreign countries, poverty, the environment, women's rights, genocide, public health, and so on. This group tends to be pretty well educated, socially liberal, vote democratic, not have kids, and be influenced by English and Sociology Professors.

The arguments against free trade are not stupid or ill-informed, but on the national stage they rest on two common logical fallacies: 1. The fallacy of composition, and; 2. The "post-hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. The fallacy of composition is basically arguing that what's true of part of the economy is true of the economy at-large. In other words, it is a poor argument to say that a declining steel sector means a declining US economy, or that job losses in one area mean job losses in the aggregate. The second is the fallacy of assuming that correlation implies causation. For example, we trade with China and I lost my job does NOT imply that trade stole my job (it also doesn't mean that I won't find a job doing something else, or that my wages must fall).

Which group has more valid concerns, and ones that are better-supported by economic theory and empirical evidence: the Joe Sixpacks, or the English Professors? Well, as it turns out (and as much as I HATE Lou Dobbs), it's the Joe Sixpacks and their hero, Lou Dobbs. Let me set one thing straight: TRADE IS GOOD – THE GAINS FROM TRADE ARE POSITIVE IN THE AGGREGATE AND ON A PER-CAPITA BASIS. But, the distributional consequences of trade (and ANY major change in policy that impacts relative prices for that matter) are severe and the negative effects (though "small" in the aggregate) are highly concentrated among a relatively small number of people who bear none of the fault for their situation. But these consequences usually only last for the "short-run," and workers who seek employment in expanding (export-oriented) sectors can sometimes put themselves in a better position than the one they were in before the layoffs, but not always.

With trade, low-skill wages may fall in a country like the United States even in the long run, which is unfortunate. And it would be heroic to ask the Joe Sixpacks to sacrifice their own well-being to raise the living standards of people in China or Indonesia. But the skill intensive goods (and services) that we export will more than compensate and we may be able to subsidize low-skill wages to compensate for the losses. In addition, the impact of offshoring on wages (even with the goods simply shipping back to WalMarts in the US) is not clear. If the offshoring is able to reap gains in the form of scale economies in a vertically-integrated global supply chain then wages in the US may rise.

Diamond-Water Paradox, Revisited

How much diamonds cost relative to something as essential as water is one of the oldest puzzles in economics. The simple answer at first was scarcity – diamonds are scarcer than water, right? Well, that's not the whole picture, because the diamond market is riddled with a small number of people willing to pay a whole heckuva lot for a really pretty rock, all water is pretty homogeneous, and the diamond market itself is well-controlled by the DeBeers cartel. What's more, scarcity or not, not everyone is willing to pay even amount of their income for a diamond, whereas they would gladly give their own lives for more water.

I've blogged before about ethnic conflict and economic incentives (new path to victory and economic development in Iraq), and I kept wondering about some of the ethnic conflict and genocide. Basically, I'm running out of examples of conflicts that are purely ethnic in nature – the only one I can come up with is Palestine.

While most of Africa's famous conflicts and genocides revolve around diamonds and the high rents that can be captured by controlling their extraction, and much of the middle east fights over oil, some places have been a bit more difficult to understand. The answer might simultaneously explain their underdevelopment, difficulty developing institutions, and propensity for conflict. What might turn out to be the case is that they aren't really fighting over ethnicity or differences in traditions, but they're fighting over water, that essential resource (and arguably "public good") that every agrarian culture needs to break out of the Malthusian Trap. The sides of the fight are simply lining up on ethnic lines, which is interesting enough, but won't contribute to a solution (and neither will the military might of the US and Europe). By focusing on ethnicity instead of economics, we make the mistake of patching the problem with a band-aid (at best) by policing the conflict rather than driving to the root of the problem.

Clearly I've done some over-simplification of the problem here, but although the problems of the moment are complex, the solution is simple – water is coming at too high a price.