Investing Curiouscatblog

Tag: externalities

  • Historical Global Economic Data and Current Issues for Globalization

    The Great Convergence by Richard Baldwin makes some interesting points about “globalization.” I actually find the long term history the most interesting aspect. It is very easy for people today to forget the recently rich “West” has not always been so dominant.

    China and India/Pakistan accounted for 73% of the world manufacturing output in 1750. They continued to account for over half of global output even as later as 1830. By 1913, however, their share had dropped to 7.5%.

    That shows how quickly things changed. The industrialization of Europe and the USA was an incredibly powerful global economic force. The rapid economic gains of Japan, Korea, Singapore, China and India in the last 50 years should be understood in the context of the last 200 years not just the last 100 years.

    A central point Richard advocates for in the book is realizing that the current conditions are different from the conditions in which traditional economic theory (including comparative advantage) hold. The reasoning and argument for this claim are a bit too complex to make sensibly in this post but the book does that fairly well (not convincingly in my opinion, but enough to make the argument that we can’t assume traditional economic theory for international trade is completely valid given the current conditions).

    Freer trade does allow all nations to gain by “doing what they do best and importing the rest.” But the fact is that TPP is much more like the soccer coach training the other team. TPP will make it easier to move advance know-how to low-wage nations – an outcome that is not covered by Adam Smith’s reasoning.”

    I don’t expect this blog post to convince people. I don’t even think his book will. But he makes a case that is worth listen to. And I believe he is onto something. I have for years been seeing the strains of “comparative advantage” in our current world economy. That doesn’t mean I am not mainly a fan of freer trade. I am. I don’t think complex trade deals such as TPP are the right move. And I do think more care needs to be taken to consider current economic conditions and factor that into our trade policies.

    Richard Baldwin uses 3 costs and the economic consequences of those changing over time to show globalizations history, where we are today and where we are going.

    The cost of moving goods came down first, followed by the cost of moving ideas. The third constraint, the cost of moving people, has yet to be relaxed.

    It isn’t very easy to follow but the book provides lots of explanation for the dramatic consequences of these costs changing over time.

    Highly skilled labor presents an attractive combination of low mobility and high spillovers. This combination is one of the reasons that almost all governments believe that subsidizing technical education is one of the best ways to promote their nation’s industrial competitiveness.

    One of his themes is that mobility of labor is still fairly costly. It isn’t easy to move people from one place to another. Though he does discuss how alternatives that are similar to this (for example telepresence and remote controlled robots to allow a highly technical person to operate remotely) without actually do moving the person are going to have huge economic consequences.

    The “high spillovers” are the positive externalities that spin off of a highly knowledgable workforce.

    (more…)

  • Fed Continues Wall Street Welfare

    Ok the title is a bit of an misstatement but I am getting so tired of massive government transfers to the rich. Basically here is what has happened. People with tens and hundreds of millions of dollars didn’t want to be subject to pesky regulations just because capitalism requires it. So they paid their politicians to not regulate their investment activities. They paid their lawyers to evade the legal requirements that they couldn’t get their political friends to remove.

    Largely what they did was take huge amounts for taking positions that risk the economy for personal gain. The investments have huge leverage and massive negative externalities to the economy. Any capitalist would know this is exactly what the government is suppose to protect the economy from. Unfortunately our politicians think capitalism is that whoever has the gold, therefore should make the rules. A sad state but not a surprise.

    So then, the negative externalities begin taking effect and the government now seems to think that massive government intervention is a great thing. What a sad state of affairs.

    What should happen now. That is hard to say.

    But certainly with the amount of huge financial bailout the government has engaged in recently certainly they need to plan for this far in advance (it is obvious their preferred method of letting their friends take huge risks with the economy and pay themselves well while the risks work out requires huge bailouts very frequently).

    You could, I suppose, decide everyone should pay to support a few thousand people being allowed take positions that have huge negative externalities (in risks to the economy) and pay themselves millions before those externalities become obvious and then bail them out when it doesn’t but that doesn’t seem like the best strategy to me. Though it is obviously the one we have chosen. This is one very non-partisan issue. They pretty much all support letting those that pay the politicians well, do whatever they want. And then support bailing them out if there are problems.

    What should the government do in economic matters. Not at all hard to say. Politicians shouldn’t auction off the health of the economy to those that pay them the most money. Politicians should not allow companies to subvert the legal and tax system and be rewarded (just because those companies pay the politicians well and fly them to nice vacations…). The government should regulate negative externalities as capitalism requires to function properly.

    But most of all the voters need to vote for those actions. As long as voters elect those that believe in corporate welfare this is the natural result.

    Related: Why Pay Taxes or be Honest – Politicians Give Lobbyists Tax Breaks for Billion Dollar Private Equities Deals (not the politicians are given the deal makers cash loans) – Estate Tax Repeal (payoff to the rich) – Politicians Again Raising Taxes On Your Children
    (more…)