Tag Archives: economics

supply and demand

Leave a reply

Mohamed El-Erian says that Saudi Arabia won’t cut its pumping to counteract falling oil prices, for fear of losing market share. He says the normal textbook rules of supply and demand will apply:

Low prices will lead to the gradual shutdown of what are now unprofitable oil fields and alternative energy supplies, and they will discourage investment in new capacity.  At the same time, they will encourage higher demand for oil.

This will all happen, but it will take a while. In the meantime, as oil prices settle at significantly lower levels, economic behavior will change beyond the “one-off” impact.

As costs fall for manufacturing and a wide range of other activities affected by energy costs, and as consumers spend less on gas and more on other things, many oil-importing nations will see a rise in gross domestic product. And this higher economic activity is likely to boost investment in new plants, equipment and labor, financed by corporate cash sitting on the sidelines.

This is where I should say something smart about natural capital or climate change or innovation. Well, maybe I’m just tired tonight.

health care cost-effectiveness

Leave a reply

Here is an interesting blog post on the “forbidden topic” of health care cost-effectiveness. It’s hard because at the personal, human level life and health are of course priceless. But at the scale of a country or civilization with limited resources, there are choices to make, and better information should allow better choices.

Research in this area can be difficult to perform. One of the reasons is that it’s not always easy to measure health outcomes. Some things, like death, can be relatively easy to define, but how do you quantify having diabetes,asthma or a seizure disorder?

A robust methodology exists for doing so, based upon the expected utility theory of John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern. Asking people to consider what risks they will take to avoid certain health states, a technique known as the “standard gamble,” can yield what we call a utility value. Another method, which asks people to think about the trade-off between a shorter life in perfect health and a longer life in an unhealthy state (this is a “time-trade-off”) can also be used to determine a utility value.

When you take a utility value and multiply it by a number of years, you can calculate “quality-adjusted life years,” or QALYs. So if interventions improve quality or add years of life (or both), the number of QALYs goes up. Taking the cost of a therapy and dividing it by the number of QALYs gained results in a measurement of cost effectiveness.

William Lazonick

Leave a reply

Recently I did a post or two on the gospel of shareholder value, where I argued that ethical managers need to consider the implications of their decisions on a variety of stakeholders, certainly including employees and customers, but also the larger society and natural environment. William Lazonick, a professor at the University of Massachusetts, argues that the ideology of maximizing shareholder value has also been a big drag on innovation since it came into vogue in the 1980s. In Harvard Business Review:

For three decades I’ve been studying how the resource allocation decisions of major U.S. corporations influence the relationship between value creation and value extraction, and how that relationship affects the U.S. economy. From the end of World War II until the late 1970s, a retain-and-reinvest approach to resource allocation prevailed at major U.S. corporations. They retained earnings and reinvested them in increasing their capabilities, first and foremost in the employees who helped make firms more competitive. They provided workers with higher incomes and greater job security, thus contributing to equitable, stable economic growth—what I call “sustainable prosperity.”

This pattern began to break down in the late 1970s, giving way to a downsize-and-distribute regime of reducing costs and then distributing the freed-up cash to financial interests, particularly shareholders. By favoring value extraction over value creation, this approach has contributed to employment instability and income inequality…

Retained earnings have always been the foundation for investments in innovation. Executives who subscribe to MSV are thus copping out of their responsibility to invest broadly and deeply in the productive capabilities their organizations need to continually innovate. MSV as commonly understood is a theory of value extraction, not value creation.

He goes into much more detail on his theories in this working paper from the “Academic-Industry Research Network“, and with just a little digging I came across this interview with him and this article by him on the “Institute for New Economic Thinking” blog.

When asked for a dissenting view, Gordon Gekko had the following comment:

Die, Cobb-Douglas Production Function, Die!

Leave a reply

Here Herman Daly unleashes a savage attack on the innocent Cobb-Douglas production function:

A large residual indicates weak explanatory power of the theory being tested–in this case the Cobb-Douglas theory that production increase is due only to capital and labor increase. But instead of being embarrassed by a large unexplained residual, some economists were eager to “explain” it as an indirect measure of technological progress, as a measure of improvement in total factor productivity. But is technology the only causative factor reflected in the residual? No, there are surely others, most especially the omitted yet rapidly increasing flow of natural resources, of energy and concentrated minerals. The contribution of energy and materials from nature to production is also part of the residual, likely dwarfing technological improvement. Yet the entire residual is attributed to technology, to total factor productivity, or more accurately “two-factor” productivity, in the absence of natural resources, the classical third factor.

November 2014 in Review

Leave a reply

At the end of October, my Hope for the Future Index stood at -2.  I’ll give November posts a score from -3 to +3 based on how negative or positive they are.

Negative trends and predictions (-6):

  • There is mounting evidence that the world economy is slowing, financial corporations are still engaged in all sorts of dirty tricks, and overall investment may be dropping. Financial authorities are trying to respond through financial means, but the connections are not being made to the right kinds of investments in infrastructure, skills, and protection of natural capital that would set the stage for long-term sustainable growth in the future. (-2)
  • Public apathy over climate change in the U.S. may have been manufactured by a cynical, immoral corporate disinformation campaign over climate change taken right out of the tobacco companies’ playbook. It’s true that the tobacco companies ultimately were called to account, but not until millions of lives were lost. Will it be billions this time? (-2)
  • Glenn Beck has gone even further off his rocker, producing a video suggesting the U.N. is going to ration food and burn old people alive while playing vaguely middle eastern music. One negative point because some people out there might not laugh. (-1)
  • The new IPCC report predicts generally negative effects of climate change on crops and fisheries. The good news is it doesn’t seem to predict catastrophic collapse, but we need to remember that the food supply needs to grow substantially in the coming decades, not just hold steady, so any headwinds making that more difficult are potentially threatening. (-1)

Positive trends and predictions (+6):

  • A lot is known about how to grow healthy trees in the most urbanized environments. But only a few cities really take advantage of this readily available knowledge. (+0)
  • As manufacturing becomes increasingly high-tech, automation vs. employment is emerging as a big theme for the future. The balance may swing back and forth over time, but in the long term I think automation has to win. New wealth will be created, but the question is how broadly it will be shared. The question is not just an economic one – it depends on the kind of social and political systems people will live under in various places. This might be why the field of economics was originally called “political economy”. So I’m putting this in the positive column but giving it no points because the jury is out. (+0)
  • Google is working on nanobots that can swim around in your blood and give an early diagnosis of cancer and other diseases. (+1)
  • Economic slowing is probably the main reason why oil prices are way down. Increased supply capacity from the U.S. also probably plays a role, although there are dissenting voices how long that is going to last. I find it hard to say whether cheaper oil is good or bad. I tend to think it is just meaningless noise on the longer time scale, but you won’t hear me complain if it brings down the price of transportation and groceries for a year or two. (+0)
  • Millennials aren’t buying cars in large numbers. I don’t believe for a second that this means they are less materialistic than past generations, but I think a shift in consumption from cars to almost anything else is a net gain for sustainability. (+2)
  • I discovered the FRAGSTATS package for comprehensive spatial analysis of ecosystems and habitats. This gives us quantitative tools to design green webs that work well for both people and wildlife. Bringing land back into our economic framework in an explicit way might also help. (+1)
  • “Perennial polyculture” gardens may be able to provide food year round on small urban footprints in temperate climates. (+1)
  • A vision for smart, sustainable infrastructure involves walkable communities, closing water and material loops, and using energy wisely. Pretty much the same points I made in my book, which I don’t actively promote on this site;) (+1)

Hope for the Future Index (end of October 2014): -2

change during November 2014: -6 + 6 = 0

Hope for the Future Index (end of November 2014): -2 + 0 = -2

land economics

Leave a reply

Here’s a long open article from Ecological Economics about studying the competition for land. Land exists at the intersection of economics and ecology, and it is conspicuously absent from a lot of economic thinking. It can be thought of as capital, in a sense, but obviously it is not manufactured capital. We can’t make more of it, but we can intensify our activities on a given piece of it (for example, more intense agriculture or taller buildings). Land is the obvious source of a lot of ecosystem services, but the value of those services tends to accrue regionally or globally rather than to the landowner. These are my own thoughts, but anyway here is the abstract:

Possible negative effects of increased competition for land include pressures on biodiversity, rising food prices and GHG emissions. However, neoclassical economists often highlight positive aspects of competition, e.g. increased efficiency and innovation. Competition for land occurs when several agents demand the same good or service produced from a limited area. It implies that when one agent acquires scarce resources from land, less resource is available for competing agents. The resource competed for is often not land but rather its function for biomass production, which may be supplanted by other inputs that raise yields. Increased competition may stimulate efficiency but negative environmental effects are likely in the absence of appropriate regulations. Competition between affluent countries with poor people in subsistence economies likely results in adverse social and development outcomes if not mitigated through effective policies. The socioecological metabolism approach is a framework to analyze land-related limits and functions in particular with respect to production and consumption of biomass and carbon sequestration. It can generate databases that consistently link land used with biomass flows which are useful in understanding interlinkages between different products and services and thereby help to analyze systemic feedbacks in the global land system.

houses and cars

Leave a reply

This article from Atlantic Monthly saying Millennials are not interested in houses and cars has been talked about a lot. The car companies think they just haven’t hit on the right propaganda yet:

Don’t blame Ford. The company is trying to solve a puzzle that’s bewildering every automaker in America: How do you sell cars to Millennials (a k a Generation Y)? The fact is, today’s young people simply don’t drive like their predecessors did. In 2010, adults between the ages of 21 and 34 bought just 27 percent of all new vehicles sold in America, down from the peak of 38 percent in 1985. Miles driven are down, too. Even the proportion of teenagers with a license fell, by 28 percent, between 1998 and 2008.

In a bid to reverse these trends, General Motors has enlisted the youth-brand consultants at MTV Scratch—a corporate cousin of the TV network responsible for Jersey Shore—to give its vehicles some 20-something edge. “I don’t believe that young buyers don’t care about owning a car,” says John McFarland, GM’s 31-year-old manager of global strategic marketing. “We just think nobody truly understands them yet.” Subaru, meanwhile, is betting that it can appeal to the quirky eco-­conscious individualism that supposedly characterizes this generation. “We’re trying to get the emotional connection correct,” says Doug O’Reilly, a publicist for Subaru. Ford, for its part, continues to push heavily into social media, hoping to more closely match its marketing efforts to the channels that Millennials use and trust the most.

I think Millennials have encountered a tough economy. If economic conditions improve and they have more money, they will find ways to spend it. But not necessarily on cars. I think cars are just fundamentally different from all the other things we can buy with our money. No other good just completely saturates the physical environment, and drives the entire way our physical world is set up, the way cars do. Cars have physically saturated our world to the point that there is no room to squeeze any more of them in. Getting around our car-oriented world is just not convenient any more, and people are smart enough to realize that no matter how much advertising is thrown at them. Advertising messages that cars represent “freedom” are just not going to resonate with most people any more. And as far as status and sex appeal, I don’t believe for a second that our species has fundamentally changed – those things still matter to our species of large hairless ape but they are moving on to new forms.

Cars kill, pollute, waste our space and waste our time – good riddance.