Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Sites | Writers | Advertise | My Orble | Login

Milton Friedman Defends Free Trade

February 8th 2010 23:34


It's a short video (6 mins) of the great economist Milton Friedman speaking of the U.S. steel industry and trade. He makes several great points:

1. The steel industry does not support free enterprise, but rather protection of their own interests, which in this case is tariffs on imported steel.


2. By Japan subsidizing their own steel industry, the U.S.:
a. receives a subsidy for cleaner air, since less steel needs to be produced in the U.S.
b. will see a decrease in steel-industry jobs, but will see an increase in other jobs. This occurs because the dollars the U.S. sends to Japan for steel must then be used, eventually, to purchase U.S. goods (or invest in the U.S.). This will create employment wherever those dollars end up.
c. essentially receives foreign aid from the Japanese. Thank you Japanese taxpayers for the cheap steel!

3. U.S. consumers are harmed by tariffs on steel, because it makes the steel (and products made from steel) more expensive than they would be otherwise.

4. Why do tariffs on steel (and other products) find political success? The Visible vs. the Invisible problem: U.S. citizens can see the people who lose their jobs to Japanese steel imports, but it is much harder/impossible to see the created/never allowed to happen export jobs.

HT: Don Boudreaux


Follow me on Twitter: @AGoldenDoor
12
Vote
   


Previously I wrote about the Monetarist explanation of this current recession. Today, I will take a look at a rather different view: Keynesianism. This school of thought became dominant during the Great Depression; however, it was eventually overtaken, in its original form at least, by Monetarism. I will focus on the original form of this theory, with some of the neo-Keynesian aspects included to make the theory more robust.

What a good ol' Keynesian would call "animal spirits" led to over-confidence in the stock and housing markets. Eventually this exuberance reversed itself and the animal spirits turned pessimistic. This led to crashes in both the housing and stock markets. As people began losing money, there was an increased tendency to save money. Unfortunately, this leads to the Paradox of Thrift: when people start saving money due to bad times, then businesses start making less money, and they start firing workers, who then need to save more money, and round and round we go. In normal recessions, the Federal Reserve can just pump more money into the system, which creates extra money to spend. This would overcome the desire to save in the short-run. If the story ended here, then there would be little significant difference between Keynesians and Monetarists. However, the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and the Great Depression were unique stories.

Like Monetarism, the Keynesians see the major problem of this recession occurring when the Fed Funds rate hit zero (note: the rate did not actually have to hit zero but for simplicity we will say that is the case). At this point, the Fed became powerless to use conventional tools to increase the money supply. As well, the effectiveness of the Fed policy was losing steam because people had such an extremely high desire to keep cash saved away and not being used productively in the economy. Such a position is the dreaded Liquidity Trap. Due to sticky prices and wages, which prevent the economy from rapidly adjusting to the recession, it would be impossible to avoid unemployment in a Liquidity Trap if the government did nothing.

SOLUTION TO RECESSION: The government needed to step in to prevent the Paradox of Thrift from taking down the economy. With the Fed out of the picture (in the heads of Keynesians, but not Monetarists as we discussed in the previous post), this meant the Federal Government would have to step in by spending enormous sums of money.

CRITICISM:
1. The government is simply transferring money from some people to other people, which does nothing to help the economy.
RESPONSE: Normally it does not help, but we are in a Liquidity Trap and the government needs to spend because the private sector has stopped spending.

2. Monetarist critique: The Fed will simply nullify the effect of the stimulus bill, because it is targeting its own growth rate.
RESPONSE: The Fed wouldn't do that. It realizes that the Fiscal Stimulus is needed in a Liquidity Trap and that the Fed cannot provide stimulus.

3. By propping up failing parts of the economy, the government is just delaying an eventual shift of resources in the economy.
RESPONSE: The problem during a Liquidity Trap is not one of "recalculation" in the economy, but rather a shortage of people willing to spend money. Any recalculation can occur later, but the government needs to do whatever it takes to get the economy churning and people spending again.

STANCE ON FISCAL STIMULUS: As was seen with TARP and the huge Stimulus Bill, the Keynesians won the day, although some die-hard Keynesians thought that both this and the New Deal of the 1930s were way too small (!).

Funny comment by Will Wilkinson on Liquidity Traps here.

Best resource for Keynesian-influenced views here.

Follow me on Twitter: @AGoldenDoor
22
Vote
   


From the New York Times:

"Once the elites have money and power," Mr. Casimir said, "they’re scared of people like me, the younger generation and so on. Because we travel around the world and see how other governments function, and obviously most countries are not corrupt like Haiti.”

As the above quote shows, one of the benefits of allowing Haitians to migrate out of Haiti is they can see how other parts of the world are much nicer places to live. One of the reasons someone like Kim Jong Il in North Korea can rule without being assassinated is that he can brainwash his people to think that living in starving conditions is somehow a good way to live. When North Koreans see that the rest of the world seems quite happy to live AND eat enough food to be healthy, Kim Jong Il's claims become less credible. The same situation is essentially true in Haiti. By allowing Haitians to see that places like the U.S. and Canada are much better governed, it can place tremendous pressure on Haiti's leaders to deliver a higher quality of life. Hopefully the U.S. government will take advantage of the opportunity to show off.

HT: Tyler Cowen

Follow me on Twitter: @AGoldenDoor
22
Vote
   


Introduction to Charter Cities

February 5th 2010 16:58
“…[P]icture someone from a very poor country, a family, a couple of young children, a father and a mother, and picture them moving to Munich or Zurich or Vancouver. We don’t think of that as colonial; we think of that as something that gives them opportunities that they really want. And this proposal is no more than saying if we can’t let hundreds of millions of people go to those cities, let’s create some new cities that are run like those cities where large numbers of people could go.” — Paul Romer

The concept of Charter Cities as a global-poverty solution was pioneered recently by economist Paul Romer. It allows, through flexible means, a charter city to be created and populated by whomever would like to move there. Presumably, the billion people stuck in extreme poverty would like the chance to live in a city governed by the rules that lead to prosperity. According to Romer, these cities would "provide security, economic opportunity, and improved quality of life." The charter city is originally set up by an existing national government who is given the rights to create a charter laying out the rules of the city. People and investors can then decide if these rules seem appealing to them. The most successful systems of rules win


[ Click here to read more ]
12
Vote
   


The main concerns of this blog are immigration, trade, and competitive government (I promise I will get to the latter two much more soon), but I would like to take a sidetrack to start a three or four-part series on different explanations of the current recession. The different schools I would like to touch on are Monetarists, Keynesians, and Austrians. Naturally, this exercise will involve oversimplification of the views, but it will hopefully be a useful resource for those of you without extensive knowledge in economics.

Today I will begin with the "Monetarist story" of the current recession. This story of the 2007-2009 recession reaches its climax in late 2008. Until that point, the economy had merely experienced a mild recession, due to the sub-prime crisis. Banks had made bad bets on loans to people who could not pay them back. As a result, a few major local housing markets collapsed. The economy stagnated for half of a year. The unemployment rate did not rise above 6%, from a starting point of 5% in December 2007, until August of 2008. It was not until late 2008 that the recession spread nationwide. This was when the Great Monetary Sin was committed by the Federal Reserve Bank. The Fed had lowered the Fed Funds Rate from 4.25 in January to a lower bound of 0 by December. This meant they had run out of conventional monetary tools to boost the economy. What was the result? Inflation (or, nominal GDP) expectations plummeted. Markets predicted that the Fed would throw its hands up in the air and call it quits when the Fed Funds rate hit zero. The markets were right. Nominal GDP did indeed fall, from around a healthy 5% to -3%. This was a drop not seen since the depression-era 1930s. This meant deflation from August to December of 2008, which was the first year-over-year deflation since the 1950s. Needless to say, the occurrence of deflation was an ugly force


[ Click here to read more ]
23
Vote
   


In a post by economist Scott Sumner from March 2009, he offers a contributing factor to the Recession that I had never heard to that point:

The housing bubble in 2004-2006 was partly driven by rapid immigration from Latin America (as was the bubble in Spain itself!), and also by a perception (which turned out false) that coastal zoning constraints were spreading into interior markets. Many Hispanic immigrants were snapping up older ranch houses, allowing native born Americans to move on to bigger McMansions. The immigration crackdown in 2007 dramatically slowed this immigration (as did the worsening economy.) Population growth estimates going several years forward fell sharply, hurting housing speculators. Ground zero of the sub-prime bust is in working class areas of the Southwest and Florida. Any guess as to who bought homes in those areas? In addition, after 2006 nominal GDP growth slowed gradually, and then very sharply, to a rate far below the level any rational investor could have anticipated in 2006. Even today, few people seem to realize the impact that going from plus 6.5% to negative 6.5% nominal growth has on housing prices. This didn’t trigger the collapse, but it dramatically deepened it.

[ Click here to read more ]
13
Vote
   


Republican International Trade Platform

February 2nd 2010 03:07
Republicans are generally regarded as the more “free market” party of the two major U.S. political parties; however, they are also seen as more xenophobic. This leads to potentially conflicting forces on endorsing free trade. According to the Republican Parties’ 2008 Platform:

Greater international trade, aggressively advanced on a truly level playing field, will mean more American jobs, higher wages, and a better standard of living. It is also a matter of national security and an instrument to promote democracy and civil society in developing nations.

[ Click here to read more ]
33
Vote
   


Brilliant Letter On Haitian Immigration

January 31st 2010 03:21
Economist Don Boudreaux frequently sends letters to newspapers pointing out the fallacies and misrepresentations in their articles. This latest letter brilliantly lays out why restricting the people of Haiti from emigrating to the United States is both immoral and hypocritical. Enjoy!

Part of your case for keeping a lid on immigration from Haiti is the claim that “Haiti’s survival depends on encouraging its best and brightest to remain and work on its revival” (“Help Haitians, but don’t throw open U.S. borders,” Jan. 29).

[ Click here to read more ]
24
Vote
   


A new study by the Chicago Urban League and the Alternative Schools Network "proves" that illegal immigration has destroyed the job market for young adults and teens. What appears to be their evidence? Well, 20-24 year old people were hit the hardest in terms of employment decline during this recession. Since these are the low-skilled workers in the economy and illegal aliens are generally low-skilled, the report concludes that it must have been illegal immigrants that led to such massive job loss from 2007-2009.

From Republican Congressman Lamar Smith's reaction to the study


[ Click here to read more ]
14
Vote
   


The Border Lines Blog has a post evaluating President Obama on his first year, with regards to immigration and border policy.

Here is an excerpt on how he views the administration's border policy


[ Click here to read more ]
34
Vote
   


More Posts
7 Posts
11 Posts
1 Posts
36 Posts dating from October 2006
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:

Dr. Liberty's Blogs

656 Vote(s)
1 Comment(s)
19 Post(s)
1704 Vote(s)
3 Comment(s)
37 Post(s)
Moderated by Dr. Liberty
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]