Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Economics’ Category

The theory of comparative advantage shows how voluntary exchange benefits both parties and encourages specialization. You don’t need to possess an absolute advantage in any particular productive activity to enjoy a comparative advantage. Your comparative advantage is whatever you can do relatively cheaply compared to everything else and everyone else. For instance, Haiti still trades with the U.S. even though it’s a much poorer economy. The reason is that the U.S. worker focuses on her/his comparative advantage – making stuff like microchips, software, financial services, houses, retail, design, engineering services, accounting services, higher education services, wheat, corn, soybeans, apricots, and airplanes – and leaves other stuff for workers in other countries, like making t-shirts, steel, rubber, bananas, coconuts, furniture, and toys. Haiti, in particular, specializes in making t-shirts. An American worker could probably make more t-shirts than a Haitian one – we have better tools (more capital) – but it doesn’t pay for us to spend our time on that when we could be doing on the things aforementioned. So we buy t-shirts from Haiti instead.

At e3ne.org I have a new post up explaining the theory and offering a short quiz. I’ve copied it below. Feel free to take your shot at the answers in the comments!

1. Imagine you’re the chief executive of a successful information technology business. You rose through the ranks as a graphic designer and are very good at that, but you’re also a good manager and fundraiser. Your task now is to write up an annual report for the shareholders. Should you use your graphic design skills to format an excellent annual report, or should you simply type up the information and delegate the formatting of the report to one of your employees?

2. Imagine the U.S. opens up to imports of clothing from China. What happens to the price of clothing in the U.S. and in China?

3. Does opening up to Chinese clothing affect the quantity of U.S. exports, say, of microchips?

4. Does opening up to Chinese clothing affect the price of microchips in the U.S. and in China?

Read Full Post »

The economic thinking behind “buy local” campaigns is typically terrible. One such example is the claim that a dollar “circulates more” when you spend it locally. The rate of circulation of a dollar doesn’t create any wealth. Try it out: circulate a dollar among a group of friends and feel your standard of living stay the same. In general, “buy local” activism commits the broken-window fallacy: ignoring opportunity costs. Spending more on the same product because it’s local means you can’t spend on other things that make you happy. And you are part of the local economy!

At e3ne.org, I have a longer critique of the fallacies behind “buy local” and “buy American” campaigns. An excerpt:

[I]magine that everyone bought local, all the time. Cars, airplanes, software, clothing, food… everything would have to be made and exchanged in the town where you live. What would happen to everyone’s standard of living? It would fall dramatically. (How many skilled airplane manufacturers does your town have?) The same principle applies at the national level, or any other geographic level you choose. If you buy everything within that circumscribed area and exclude everything outside it, your community will be worse off than it would be if it bought from any willing seller.

Now, that’s an extreme example, but it illustrates the principle. Some things are impossible to make locally (airplanes). Other things are difficult and costly to make locally (shipping and retailing of plastic bins). A few things will be most efficiently and affordably made locally, and you will want to buy them locally without having to be goaded into doing so – they’ll simply be the best products for the price. Goading your community into buying shoddier or more costly products just because they’re local or American or whatever just makes your community poorer.

Read more.

Read Full Post »

Critics of the President’s State of the Union address noted it did little to promote bipartisanship. Yet, it has already stimulated bipartisan agreement on one of the President’s education proposals.

In the State of the Union, President Obama proposed free community college:

“I am sending this Congress a bold new plan to lower the cost of community college—to zero.

…Whoever you are, this plan is your chance to graduate ready for the new economy, without a load of debt. Understand, you’ve got to earn it—you’ve got to keep your grades up and graduate on time. Tennessee, a state with Republican leadership, and Chicago, a city with Democratic leadership, are showing that free community college is possible. I want to spread that idea all across America, so that two years of college becomes as free and universal in America as high school is today.”

One detail that failed to make it into the State of the Union address: The funding for the program would come by effectively killing the 529 college savings accounts, that exempt earnings from taxation if used for educational expenses.

This fact stimulated bipartisanship, albeit not the kind the President anticipated. As Jonathan Weisman (New York Times) explains:

President Obama, facing angry reprisals from parents and from lawmakers of both parties, will drop his proposal to effectively end the popular college savings accounts known as 529s, but will keep an expanded tuition tax credit at the center of his college access plan, White House officials said Tuesday.

The decision came just hours after Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio demanded that the proposal be withdrawn from the president’s budget, due out Monday, “for the sake of middle-class families.” But the call for the White House to relent also came from top Democrats, including Representatives Nancy Pelosi of California, the minority leader, and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Although this means of funding the community college proposal seemed particularly tone deaf, it does illustrate that bipartisanship is possible when protecting tax expenditures. Imagine if reformers focused on even larger tax expenditures (e.g. the $212 billion exclusion of employer-provided health insurance, the $176 billion expenditures for pensions and 401(k)s, or the $101 billion deduction of mortgage interest)? A new era of bipartisanship might bloom.

Related: See Josh Kraushaar in National Journal for an interesting piece on the SOTU and the implications for Hillary Clinton 2016.

Read Full Post »

The Hagedorn, Manovskii, and Mitman working paper on the effect of unemployment insurance (UI) on employment has been getting a lot of press lately. In brief, they find that the end of the federal unemployment insurance extension accounts for about 1.8 million new jobs in 2014.

Mike Konczal does a useful deep dive on the paper here and is very skeptical of the result. In particular, he criticizes as implausible and empirically inaccurate labor market search models that imply employer monopsony power, which are essential to the plausibility of the result. These models are also essential to the revisionist literature on the minimum wage, holding that minimum wage increases do not reduce low-productivity workers’ employment. Curiously, Mike Konczal has defended search models in this aspect. He’s a smart guy and clearly thinks that applications of search theory to macroeconomic variables have problems that the application to the minimum wage doesn’t – but if search theory badly explains one phenomenon, it’s unlikely to do well explaining another. There’s a clear tension between claiming simultaneously that employer monopsony power explains why raising the minimum wage doesn’t reduce employment and that ending UI can’t have increased employment so much because employers don’t have that much monopsony power, even if the latter claim is limited to slack periods in the business cycle. (Why wouldn’t employer monopsony power be greater during slack periods in the business cycle? The Marxist concept of the “reserve army of the unemployed” comes to mind here.)

Another interesting parallel between the UI and minimum wage research is that the famous Dube et al. paper in Review of Economics and Statistics relied heavily on matched-border-county estimates, as does the Hagedorn et al. paper. Having looked at these data, I actually agree with Konczal that these models are inappropriate. The logic behind using matched border counties is that contiguous counties are alike in every relevant way other than the policy discontinuity associated with the state border (say, one county has a high minimum wage and the other does not). But border counties are actually usually quite dissimilar. Take Camden, N.J. and Philadelphia, Penn. These two counties are vastly different in size, so if Camden creates jobs at a higher rate than Philadelphia, Camden’s new jobs might still be a tiny percentage of Philadelphia’s. Yet the Dube/Hagedorn approach considers these counties to be equivalent, and takes the larger percentage increase in jobs for Camden as an indication of superior New Jersey employment policy. (See also David Neumark on empirical evidence that border counties are not appropriate control groups.)

In summary, if you are skeptical of the empirical strategy and theoretical justification of the literature saying the minimum wage has no negative employment effects, you should also be skeptical of the empirical strategy and theoretical justification of the new paper showing that unemployment insurance has big disemployment effects. If you like the Dube et al. minimum wage work, you should like the Hagedorn et al. UI paper. How many wonks are intellectually honest enough to adopt one of these two, ideologically inconvenient pairs of positions?

Read Full Post »

Dragnet’s Joe Friday may have never uttered those words, but he would be impressed nonetheless by the facts on crime. There was a fascinating piece by Erik Eckholm in yesterday’s New York Times on the Drop-in-crimedramatic reductions in crime over the past several decades. Overall, crime peaked in 1991 and has fallen steadily since then.

 

All of this leads to the big question: why? Is it a change in tactics (e.g., aggressive policing, the “broken window” theory)? Is it a product of an increase in the costs of criminality (e.g., mandatory sentencing and the decision to keep 1.5 million people in prison)? Is it a product of good economic times? Perhaps it simply reflects demographics (e.g., the aging of the population, the decline in teenage pregnancy)? In the end, law professor Franklin E. Zimring (UC-Berkeley) is quoted as describing the search for an explanation as “criminological astrology.”

 

Max Ehrenfreund (Washington Post Wonkblog) has designated the above “chart of the day” as “something of a Rorschach test. Everyone sees what they want to see in it.” That may be something of an overstatement. Certainly, the advocates of the war on drugs, police militarization, aggressive policing and harsh sentencing laws will view it as evidence that their strategies have worked. They will have the challenge of explaining why similar trends are evident elsewhere, including Canada, that have not embraced the US model. And I am not at all certain of how the Left would make sense of the fact that crime has fallen as inequality has increased.

Will the decline in crime have an impact on public policy? Will it lead to a rethinking of police militarization and mass incarceration? I hold little hope given that public opinion seems immune to the facts.

uotxycqc8u6z0k1zh06lpg

 

Even if crime has fallen dramatically, according to Gallup the majority of Americans in most years on record believe that crime is getting worse. As Gallup observes: “federal crime statistics have not been highly relevant to the public’s crime perceptions in recent years.” A public concerned with crime and (willfully) ignorant of the long-term trends will continue to demand an aggressive police presence. And that demand will be met.

Read Full Post »

Of Plutocrats and Arguments

At the meeting of the American Economic Association in Boston last weekend, there were protests organized by a group calling itself “Kick It Over,” who, as the Washington Post styled it, were “battling for the soul of economics.” Their protest included heckling and disruptions of the talks given by Gregory Mankiw, Larry Summers, and Carmen Reinhart.

For his part, Mankiw wrote a short post on his blog after the conference recounting some of the protesting and responding to the charges of the protesters. He reports that one of them asked him how much the Koch brothers had paid him:

After the first session was over, one of the hecklers came up to me and asked, “How much money have the Koch brothers paid you?”  My answer, of course, was “not a penny.”

Mankiw argues in his post that if he is making mistakes, it is in good faith: “If I am wrong, it is sincere wrong-headedness, not the result of being on some plutocrat’s payroll, as some on the left want to believe.”

That is an important point to make. Assuming bad faith on the part of a person holding a position different from one’s own poisons, rather than furthers, the conversation. It is also, as Mankiw notes, not an effective strategy to get people to change their minds. Insulting people rarely is.

But there is an even more important point to make: Even if it is true that a person received funding from a donor or foundation with a specific point of view, nevertheless his or her arguments, claims, and positions should be evaluated on their merits. One’s motives—whatever they are, good or bad—are irrelevant to the truth of one’s positions and to the soundness of one’s arguments.

This is an elementary point in logic. Attacking the motives of a person is an example of the ad hominem fallacy, or more generally the genetic fallacy—both of which are, in fact, fallacies.

Now, it is true that there might be cases in which attacking a person’s credibility might be effective, and possibly even relevant. The testimony of a witness in a trial who stands to gain depending on the outcome of the trial might for that reason warrant less credibility. But merely pointing out that the source of one’s arguments might be questionable does not suffice to refute those arguments. The arguments might still be sound, after all.

Thus Mankiw concedes too much when he denies having received funding from the Koch brothers. What he should have responded to that protester instead is: “What difference does it make? If I’m wrong, demonstrate my mistake.”

Too often today speculation about people’s motives passes for acceptable rational discourse. But it is not acceptable. Whether you received funding from Charles Koch or George Soros or anyone else, we owe you the respect of assuming that you are a rational and autonomous person presenting a position in good faith. Our job, then, is to evaluate your position, charitably yet critically, on the merits.

Assuming that one’s intellectual opponents must be some combination of naive, ignorant, or evil is easier than attempting to refute their position. But it is not only disrespectful, it is also pointless. You do not know what your opponent’s motives are. One might be the most evil person in the world, but one’s claims might still be true.

Read Full Post »

Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

There is great buzz over today’s jobs report. The economy added 321,000 jobs in November.

The New York Times:

“After more than five years of elusive gains, ordinary Americans may finally be about to see the benefits of the recovery where it really counts: in their pocketbooks and wallets. … For the year as a whole, the gain in jobs, with one month still to go, is shaping up as the best in 15 years.”

Washington Post:

November’s numbers cap the best three-month period of labor market expansion since the financial crisis… Some economists said that November’s data — across-the-board job creation, coupled with a slight uptick in wages — has put the American economy in its best position in years.”

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,046 other followers

%d bloggers like this: