Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | Paid | My Orble | Login

Borderless World - February 2010

Essential Ideas in Economics

February 27th 2010 00:19
I have created my first page over at Squidoo, called Essential Ideas in Economics. This page will be an ongoing project. Check it out!

Follow me on Twitter: @AGoldenDoor



32
Vote
   


I am going to go off-topic with a few random blurbs here. Don't worry, I will get back to trade, immigration, and government later today.

Part 1: Health Care Reform

From what I have followed of the Health Care debate over the last few years, the intellectual level has been unsurprisingly low on both sides. Conservatives have been focusing on protecting Medicare, but opposing government-run health care. Liberals have just assumed that Medicare can be expanded to the national level with no changes in how it is run, even though there will no longer be a private sector to push costs over on to. Conservatives put way too much focus on "tort reform, tort reform, tort reform." Liberals ignore that the Massachusetts plan has been a complete failure in terms of cost. Conservatives ignore that Mitt Romney was the governor of Massachusetts when they adopted that health care plan. Both sides use the "X is popular, so it is good policy" reasoning (i.e. the Massachusetts plan/ Medicare). And on and on and on...


One ongoing problem with American politics is that it focuses way too much on Western Europe and ignores the rest of the world (what!?! there are countries outside of Europe worth paying attention to???) We are constantly told how little Europe spends on health care, but how they are actually healthier than Americans. Well, what if I told you that there was a country outside of Europe that spends half as much on health care, covers everyone, lives longer, and is richer? Sounds like a pretty decent fantasy world, right? Actually, it is a real place: Singapore. Courtesy of brilliant economist Scott Sumner, here is a summary of what a Singaporean-style health care would look like in the United States:

Let Medicare take over catastrophic insurance for everyone, and let HSAs cover 95% of health care bills. Then provide a subsidy to low income workers’ HSAs. Voila, no private insurance companies.

(Note: HSA's are Health Savings Accounts. Essentially, worker's would have a % of their income deducted out of their paycheck and placed in an account that would be used to pay for medical expenses. This money would carry-over from year to year.)

Why Liberals should support a plan like this:
1. EVERYONE IS COVERED. It is not the "comprehensive coverage" that Democrats argue for, but it would put the "insurance" back in "health insurance."
2. They claim that Republicans are in the pocket of Big Insurance. This plan gets rid of insurance companies.
3. Drastically reduces, or even eliminates, the chances of people going bankrupt from health bills, due to catastrophic coverage and subsidies.

Why Conservatives should support a plan like this:
1. PEOPLE GET TO SPEND THEIR OWN MONEY ON HEALTH CARE, via Health Savings Accounts
2. Medicare would become a sustainable model.
3. Lower costs of health care as the health care market becomes much closer to a free market (95% of the time there would be no third party paying for health expenses).


Part 2: Do Political Parties have REALLY short memories?




Part 3: Hilarious Shaun White Moment of Zen Video

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Moment of Zen - Shaun White's Tomahawk
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorVancouverage 2010



Follow me on Twitter: @AGoldenDoor
36
Vote
   


In a not-so-common piece of good trade legislation, the U.S. government eliminated trade barriers on products from several African countries with the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). Clinton signed this legislation into law in 2000, with the goal of assisting poor African nations. According to William Easterly, "Madagascar’s exports tripled in the first three years of the program, and the textile sector, which made up 60 percent of Malagasy exports, accounted directly for 50,000 jobs and indirectly at least 100,000 more." By all accounts, this program was a success for people in Madagascar.

Unfortunately, the Madagascar government committed the crime of having a President who was not "democratic enough." In December, the U.S. declared Madagascar as no longer eligible to receive the benefits of the AGOA. This meant the U.S. imposed fairly substantial tariffs (up to 34%) on products coming into the U.S. from Madagascar. I wonder what this might have done to the economy of Madagascar? Let's take a look:

* Factories closing and factory jobs lost: “As lead times [expire] on orders placed before the agreement [came to an end], factories are laying off workers and we are seeing an explosion in the numbers of unemployed,” said the director pf the Association of Free Trade Business in Antanarivo.
* Increased competition among street traders now that former factory workers are pushed out to sell goods in overly crowded street markets (and lower wages now for both): “‘I used to be able to earn 20,000 ariary ($9.30) a day,’ said Soloniaina Rasoarimanana, who has been selling clothes from a pavement stall for 10 years. ‘Now, with the political crisis and more competition, I earn around 5,000 ariary ($2.30) a day.’”
* Knock-on effects in neighboring countries (Mauritius, Swaziland, Lesotho, South Africa) which made inputs like zippers to Madagascar’s factories.


If the goal of AGOA was to help Africans in poverty, then this policy is seriously failing Madagascar and a handful of other African countries. If AGOA was meant to bring more democracy to Africa, then this policy is failing on those grounds too, as nothing has changed in Madagascar's political regime. Democracies are nice things, but why punish innocent Africans so that a couple of bad guys will straighten up? Should the U.S. adopt the policy that if they cannot catch a Most Wanted criminal, they should torture the entire city in which he lived?

Final line, from William Easterly:

Ineffective sanctions, effective job destruction. An unaccountable branch of the US government hurts poor people far away who have no voice in US politics.

Follow me on Twitter: @AGoldenDoor
31
Vote
   


What is the Optimal Size of a Country?

February 24th 2010 23:41
People often cite being a large country as one of the advantages of the United States. Presumably, it allows the U.S. to have a large market and specialize in several different types of tasks. However, when one looks at different indicators of a successful country, it appears that being SMALL, rather than large, is the true advantage. (See HDI and GDP/capita for two examples)

In the 1800s, the United States had an influx of immigrants and was also reaping the benefits of the Industrial Revolution. In the interwar period, protectionism greatly increased throughout the world. This is where the U.S. being large came in handy. It is one thing for a country like the U.K. to not have trading partners, but the United States is essentially comprised of 50 small to medium-sized countries with free trade agreements. While the rest of the world was building barriers to trade, the United States had "international" trade occurring within its borders. It was around this time period that the United States truly emerged as the global leader


[ Click here to read more ]
39
Vote
   


Under current U.S. immigration law, there are three primary ways to gain legal entry into the country other than for a limited stay as a tourist:

• The first is through the annual “green card diversity lottery,” held each year by the Department of Homeland Security, for citizens of countries that have “low rates of immigration” to the United States. Millions of people from specified countries around the world apply to take part in the lottery, but only 50,000 green cards are made available through the process. Each participant in the lottery is issued a number, the government draws about 150,000 numbers, and the people with those numbers then are allowed to apply for one of the 50,000 slots.

[ Click here to read more ]
36
Vote
   


Fair Trade is Bad for the Poor

February 20th 2010 16:38
Recently, people have become attached to the Fair Trade movement. Why have free trade when trade could be fair? Despite the more appealing title, Fair Trade is not all that it is cracked up to be. From Andrew Chambers:

Fairtrade provides a minimum baseline price for commodities, allowing farmers to hedge against market volatility. The co-operative system allows small farmers better access to global markets and encourages democratic representation. Each commodity price also includes a "social premium" which can be reinvested in social or development projects.

[ Click here to read more ]
43
Vote
   


More On Chinese Currency Manipulation

February 20th 2010 04:25
Earlier today, I talked about why China's undervalued yuan was actually a benefit to America. Mark Perry offers his insight:

the undervalued yuan and overvalued dollar makes Chinese goods cheaper and more affordable for American consumers and companies, saving us billions of dollars, and making us wealthier and China poorer. It would be like accusing Wal-Mart of "manipulation" for offering "Everyday Low Prices," and saving Americans billions of dollars??

[ Click here to read more ]
30
Vote
   


Democratic International Trade Platform

February 19th 2010 18:08
I previously reviewed the Republican's stance on international trade here. Today, I will look over the Democrat's platform:

We believe that trade should strengthen the American economy and create more American jobs, while also laying a foundation for democratic, equitable, and sustainable growth around the world.

[ Click here to read more ]
21
Vote
   


One of the "hot topics" in U.S. trade policy is the value of the Chinese yuan. Politicians get all in an uproar, because, they claim, China artificially lowers the value of their currency. This makes their exports cheaper, and thus, allows them to run a huge trade surplus with the U.S. Of course, this means the U.S. must run a huge trade deficit with China. A couple points to consider:

1. If China was forced to raise the value of their currency, it would do nothing to change the overall trade deficit of the United States. Trade balances are determined by the gap in domestic Savings and Investment. Thus, the U.S. would just run a larger trade deficit with another country or countries. Unless there is some reason why the Chinese trade deficit matters more than other types of trade deficits, the value of the Chinese yuan means nothing


[ Click here to read more ]
25
Vote
   


The Myth of Buy Local

February 18th 2010 17:02
We constantly encounter advertisements and political rhetoric telling us to "Buy Local!" or "Buy American!" How can people still seriously believe this kind of anti-trade thinking disguised by patriotism?

Let us assume that there are two brands of toothpaste: Local and Foreign. Local is a highly expensive, low-quality product, while Foreign is a cheap, high-quality product. You would prefer to buy Foreign, but your mayor would prefer you buy Local, so he bans Foreign. He claims that it will increase the welfare of the community. How is that so? He is forcing you to accept an inferior product AND have less money to spend on other goods. Therefore, he has reduced the welfare of the consumers in that community


[ Click here to read more ]
24
Vote
   


To make a drastic understatement, the United States government has a lot of debt. If the economy begins booming again, this debt burden will be relieved to some extent. But aside from counting on the strategy of growing ourselves out of a debt crisis, there is another way to relieve debt (via William Easterly):

Here’s the short version. If you are worried about having enough tax revenue to pay interest on the government debt, find more taxpayers! And look, here are some people volunteering to become new taxpayers: Haitian immigrants fleeing quakes and poverty! So let’s open the door to our Haitian fiscal rescuers, who will also lift themselves out of poverty as dramatized by a previous post. It’s a TWOFER!

[ Click here to read more ]
18
Vote
   


Brain Drain


Over at EconLog, Arnold Kling quotes Laura Freschi arguing against the claim that immigration leads to "brain drain," which is harmful for Africans (my highlighting added


[ Click here to read more ]
25
Vote
   


There is a very important post over at economist Steven Landsburg's blog. The intro:

Back in 1992, a ten year old Bangladeshi girl named Moyna was one of 50,000 children who lost their jobs in the wake of protectionist legislation sponsored by the execrable union-backed Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa. How does Moyna feel about Americans now? “They loathe us, don’t they?”, she says. “We are poor and not well educated, so they simply despise us. That is why they shut the factories down.”

[ Click here to read more ]
24
Vote
   


In the beginnings of the Great Depression, countries around the world erected trade barriers. This was one of the causes of a massive drop in world trade and, along with other factors, helped to prolong the depression. This time around, in the Great Recession, this same mistake was not repeated on the same scale. In fact, recently there have been talks around the world of free trade agreements. These countries include, among many others,:

Colombia and Panama (talks have just begun
[ Click here to read more ]
20
Vote
   


Trade Brings Peace

February 15th 2010 22:07
From Jonathan Sacks book, Dignity of Difference:

If the price of war has become too high, which it has, we will have to value the habits of trade—the only thing that—throughout history, has brought tribes and nations together, benefiting from one another and from their several and different skills. The interlinking of nations in a network of trade causes many problems to which I now turn. But it is also our last best hope for peace. Unlike the battlefield, the market is an arena in which both sides can win.

[ Click here to read more ]
21
Vote
   


How To Help Haitians Video

February 15th 2010 18:06
I plan on making a series of short commercial-like videos for issues concerning this blog. Here is the first one on the best way to help Haitians:


[ Click here to read more ]
21
Vote
   


With the Olympics upon us, the issues of patriotism and borders are thrown out into the open. Not exactly a great time to be someone trying to point out the downsides of these concepts. Still, it seemed fitting to clearly and briefly state again what this blog should be addressing.

If you, the reader, could take away one point I am trying to make, it is that making policy based on artificial national borders is counterproductive and, in many cases, immoral. Too often politicians frame immigration policy as a matter of improving the national welfare, without factoring in the great benefit that immigrants receive from migrating to a wealthy country like the United States. The same paradigm occurs with trade policy. Even though the benefits of specializing and trading remain true whether it occurs at the household, national, or global level, people are trained to think only at the first two levels. Ignoring people outside of the borders of ones own country brings tremendous, unnecessary pain and suffering on those people. The main mission of this blog is to point out that pain and suffering


[ Click here to read more ]
36
Vote
   


Recently, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm attempted to blame the poor state of Michigan's economy on trade agreements with Mexico. James Hohman challenged her claims:

Company relocations are a very rare occurrence. In 2004, the Bureau of Labor Statistics kept track of U.S. companies that moved their production. The survey includes responses on employer and work relocations, and the answers are fairly surprising. In the first three quarters of 2004, 685,929 employees were separated from their work, but only 40,727 were separated because their companies relocated, and only a quarter of these jobs — 10,722 — moved outside of the United States.

[ Click here to read more ]
30
Vote
   


Ezra Klein wrote a great blog post back in 2007 that effectively sums up some of the views I hold and have written about so far on this blog. I thought I would recap the findings here to show that I am not completely making stuff up.

1. The most prominent study on the impact of low-skilled immigration, by Harvard economist George Borjas, estimates a 7% decrease in wages for unskilled workers. For now, let us assume that is true. Anti-immigration advocates argue that, in order to keep low-skilled workers' wages a minor 7% higher, the United States should forgo the massive gains to immigrants and the considerable gain to the economy


[ Click here to read more ]
45
Vote
   


US Students Not Harmed By Immigrants

February 12th 2010 13:56
A Kansas State University economist has researched the effect of immigrant students on the success of domestic students' SAT scores and their probability of applying to top schools. The economist, Florence Neymotin, found no negative effect. This supports the notion that higher levels of immigrants in a school system do not adversely impact the chances of a domestic student receiving an acceptance letter from a top university. To be fair, the study covered only the states of Texas and California; however, it is not obvious why these results would not be generalizable to the whole population. Yet another unfair charge against immigrants.


[ Click here to read more ]
23
Vote
   


In the early 1800s, David Ricardo is credited with developing the theory of Comparative Advantage, which is perhaps the most important finding in the field of economics. It describes how when two people each specialize in a task and trade, they are able to consume more than if they had tried to do both tasks by themselves. This is the foundation upon which International Trade Theory resides and why economists almost unanimously support extremely low (or no) tariffs.

In theory, one could object and ask the question, "What if people are all the exact same?" If this were the case, then trading does not make any sense. There would be no differences to exploit a comparative advantage. Explaining why this is incorrect was the subject of economist Russ Roberts recent podcast
[ Click here to read more ]
20
Vote
   


It does not take much effort to remember the last time you heard a politician decrying the practice of creating jobs overseas. In President Obama's State of the Union Address he said, "we will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas." No mention of the exact tax breaks he was referring to, nor the magnitude of this problem of corporations shipping jobs overseas. I wonder what would happen if corporations were not allowed to "ship our jobs overseas."

1. U.S. consumers and producers would lose out. Consumers would be hurt by having to pay higher prices for their goods. Producers would be hurt by having to run their business less efficiently. This likely means lower income for employees. Like free trade, the money that the consumers would have spent elsewhere in the economy (creating jobs) will now be spent on paying the higher price of this good. The effect is fewer total jobs and/or a lower standard of living. (See here
[ Click here to read more ]
30
Vote
   


From the Associated Press:

...three Mexican citizens who were charged with illegal re-entry after being found in Travis County Jail [in Texas].

[ Click here to read more ]
31
Vote
   


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


[ Click here to read more ]
31
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


[ Click here to read more ]
30
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.”

[ Click here to read more ]
32
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 ]
22
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 ]
34
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 ]
23
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 ]
43
Vote
   


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

Dr. Liberty's Blogs

1676 Vote(s)
1 Comment(s)
28 Post(s)
2475 Vote(s)
5 Comment(s)
37 Post(s)
Moderated by Dr. Liberty
Copyright © 2012 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 ]