Rising inflation in Asia stings in the West - International Herald Tribune

I hate bad news. But this is bad news. Just as the US economy is about to officially enter its long-dreaded recession triggered by falling home prices and weak investment and consumption, it looks like inflation will continue to accelerate as wages and commodity prices skyrocket across Asia.

“Inflation is the major threat to Asian countries,” said Jong-Wha Lee, the head of the Asian Development Bank’s office of regional economic integration.
It is also a threat to Western consumers because Asian exporters, even in very poor countries, are passing their rising costs on to their customers.

Now Americans are in big trouble. While the dollar plummets, making imports more expensive, wages and input prices in Asia are climbing, leading to autonomous increases in the price levels overseas.

That puts American consumers in a double bind, paying at least some of producers’ higher costs for making their goods, and higher prices on top of that because the dollar buys less in those countries.

So where lies the hope for relief? Is there any? What are the possibilities that input costs will fall in Asia, offering relief to consumers in the West? Daniel Altman, the International Herald Tribune’s economics blogger, has this to say:

On the labor question, there is some precedent for relief. When wages rose in Japan and Korea, production of cheap consumer goods and electronics shifted to Hong Kong and Malaysia. When wages there rose, it moved to China and Vietnam. With higher wages in those countries, it could shift to poorer nations in Africa, Central Asia and Latin America - provided those nations are stable enough to do business with foreigners.

There is no relief in sight for energy and commodity prices, however. Demand is simply too great. New technology could provide some answers with time, though it’s not clear how it can solve problems like the lead and copper shortages. In the short term, we may simply have to accept that living standards, judged by our material consumption, will not rise as quickly as they have in the past couple of decades. It was a nice ride while it lasted, eh?

Globalization and free trade have led to huge improvements in access to affordable manufactured goods for Western consumers. The hope that cheap imports will drive our consumptive lifestyles into the future, however, is waning as the basic economic problem of scarcity rears its ugly head in labor and commodity markets.

Discussion Questions:

1. Is global inflation today primarily demand-pull or cost-push? How do you know?
2. What implications do rising wages in China have for less developed countries such as those in Africa and Latin America?
3. As commodity supplies dwindle, how can the world’s economies continue to grow? Can they? Will the world ever reach a point where continued growth is impossible and a period of contraction begins?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Michael Munger, Bosses Don’t Wear Bunny Slippers, If Markets Are So Great, Why Are There Firms: Library of Economics and Liberty

The other day when we introduced our unit on market failure, we began by revisiting the concept of free markets as mechanisms for allocating scarce resources efficiently. As I was reading blogs tonight, I stumbled upon this blog post by Michael Munger, professor of political economy at Duke University, where he shares an anecdote he uses when introducing the allocating power of markets through the price mechanism:

When I teach political economy, I start with the neoclassical theory of consumption, and then cover production. And I show students how miraculous is it that the actions of millions of people who have never met can be directed by prices. Resources move toward their highest valued use, and consumption goods are delivered to the consumers who want them.

For example, the United States promoted ethanol as an auto fuel. This sharply increased the price of corn worldwide. As Brazilian reporter Kieran Gartlan put it: “Higher prices are leading Brazilian farmers to plant more second crop corn this year, and the country’s modest corn exports are expected to expand [from 42 million tonnes to 48 million tonnes, an increase of 230 million bushels.]” (DTN, March 2, 2007, emphasis mine).

No one directed the Brazilian farmers to shift to corn production. The article puts it perfectly: “Higher prices are leading farmers….” The leadership comes from the prices themselves! The farmers may have had no idea why the price of corn had increased, to $4.00 per bushel. (After all, Brazil uses sugar, not corn, to produce its ethanol.) But Brazilian corn production increased within a year, by nearly 15%. No one made the farmers switch; they made choices. Other corn producers, in Argentina, Mexico, and several African countries, followed suit. No one talked about it, no one gave any orders; prices led them.

The reason I post this excerpt from professor Munger’s blog now is that it serves as a great response to a student who on the first day of our market failure class posited that perhaps the government could do a better job of deciding what goods and services and how much of them should be produced in an economy.

Yes, markets fail, and for many reasons: a concentration of power among a few large firms, an underallocation of resources towards goods that have spillover benefits, the over-provision of goods that have spillover costs, the failure of the market to provide public goods: these are examples of how market fail.

But when markets work, they really work! The efficiency of resource allocation that results from free, competitive, markets is unrivaled by any central planning agency. Munger’s example above is a simple illustration of this allocative power of markets and prices.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Introduction to the WTO, continued…

 

 Carlos Siu: "Intellectual Property": Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

 

 Lucas Topham: "Non-tariff Barriers": Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

 

 Wan Jin Park: "Services": Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

 

 Danny Witters: "Agriculture" [1:20m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

 

 Daniel Yeung: "Plurilaterals" and "Trade Policy Reviews" [1:57m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

To eat . . . . or to drive? - Times Online

The whole debate over global warming has just as many economic as environmental implications. A recent article in The Times illustrated how the growing investment in renewable biofuels impacts on global food markets.

Apparently as a result, Japanese snack packets now contain 10% less chips than they did a month ago, while the price of beer at the Munich Oktoberfest will be at record levels.

These, say industry insiders, are the first skirmishes of a conflict that could soon dominate geopolitics: the war for resources between the world’s 800 million cars and its six billion stomachs. In the developed world, the war will come down to price and choice; in the developing world it could come down to survival. The war centres largely on global demand for biofuels — “green” replacements for petrol, such as ethanol, that can be produced from sugar, corn and other agricultural products rather than fossil fuels.

Wheat and barley fields are being replaced by ethanol sources, such as sugar and corn, in the USA and Brazil. Reduced food supplies are leading to higher prices for snacks and beer. The article states starkly that the “war for resources” will be between cars and stomachs. Economists would not envisage such an apocalypse, because they believe that the price system will efficiently allocate resources even on such a wide scale over the globe and between such apparently disparate goods. But the intermediate scenarios should be interesting.

Capitalism and democracy: friends or foes? | Free exchange | Economist.com

How Capitalism Is Killing Democracy - Foreign Policy (abstract only)

When I last saw my students on Friday, I left them with a question to ponder and discuss on our class Wiki over the weekend (see “Student Thought Forum”): “Why is FREEDOM so important in a market economy? If people in society are not free, can a market economy truly succeed?”.

Friday’s class discussion focused on the different answers to the basic economic questions offered by centrally planned versus market economies. Here’s how my students explained the basic differences between free markets and command economies.

The question I left them to ponder over the weekend had to do with an apparent paradox visible in China today: that of a free market economy seemingly thriving in a society where political and social freedoms are severely limited by the communist dictatorship. It has long been claimed that free markets will be followed closely by political freedom, and vis versa. The two are thought to go hand in hand. According to the Economist.com blog, Free Exchange:

The late Milton Friedman emphasized that economic freedom promotes political freedom and is also
necessary for the sustainability of political freedom over time. His underlying logic is that competitive capitalism separates economic power from political power. One could point to Chile, Taiwan and South Korea as examples where Friedman’s logic seems to hold.

So if, as Friedman said, free markets lend themselves to free societies, then how has China’s thriving market economy not resulted in a freer society, even after 30 years of economic liberalization? Robert Reich of the Foreign Policy Journal examines the issue in some depth:

Conventional wisdom holds that where either capitalism or democracy flourishes, the other must soon follow. Yet today, their fortunes are beginning to diverge. Capitalism, long sold as the yin to democracy’s yang, is thriving, while democracy is struggling to keep up. China, poised to become the world’s third largest capitalist nation this year after the United States and Japan, has embraced market freedom, but not political freedom. Many economically successful nations—from Russia to Mexico—are democracies in name only. They are encumbered by the same problems that have hobbled American democracy in recent years, allowing corporations and elites buoyed by runaway economic success to undermine the government’s capacity to respond to citizens’ concerns.

Of course, democracy means much more than the process of free and fair elections. It is a system for accomplishing what can only be achieved by citizens joining together to further the common good. But though free markets have brought unprecedented prosperity to many, they have been accompanied by widening inequalities of income and wealth, heightened job insecurity, and environmental hazards such as global-warming.

What can explain the recent divergence of capitalism and democracy in countries like China, Russia and Mexico? The Free Exchange blog explains:

The cause of this divergence, Mr Reich contends, is that companies seeking an advantage over global competitors have invested increasing amounts of money in government lobbying, public relations and bribery. This process of corporations’ “writing their own rules” has weakened the ability of average citizens to have their voices heard through the democratic process.

So it appears that as capitalism and free markets have flourished, freedom of the individual has been trumped by freedom of the corporation to lobby and thus influence government into creating favorable environments for investment and growth, often times at the expense of society’s health and the best interests of the public as a whole. We will learn a term for this kind of activity in AP Economics: rent-seeking behavior. As firms grown larger and industrial and commercial power becomes concentrated in powerful multi-national corporations, the priorities of governments seem to be shifting away from individual freedoms and civil rights and towards the interests of the corporate world, whose money and influence run deep through the veins of the world’s governments.

So perhaps I was wrong. Maybe Milton Friedman was wrong too. Perhaps the 21st Century has bred a new relationship where free market capitalism is wed not to democracy, but to a new kind of corporatocracy, a term used by Noam Chomsky, in which governments bow not to the will of the people they govern, rather to the pressures from corporate entities. Freedom and justice for all (firms, that is). Gives you something to think about, huh? Any comments?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Two heterodox economists respond to an article I blogged about last week, Hip Heterodoxy, published in the Nation, written by Chris Hayes.

Challenging Orthodox Economics – Part I | TPMCafe by Thomas Palley

Economics Outside the Mainstream | TPMCafe by David Ruccio

As our year winds down and we begin getting our materials and lessons in order for our next batch of AP Econ students, it’s unlikely we’ll pause to ask a rather important question: “Is the economics I’m teaching my students the correct and immutable truth?”

After all, isn’t economics still a young science? It’s only been a few generations since Smith, Riccardo and Locke laid the groundwork for what has become the mainstream, neo-classical/neo-Keynesian theory that makes up every major economics text and principles course out there. Who’s to say that in another one hundred years these views, products of the late 20th century themselves, will still be considered the correct solutions for dealing with the economic problem?

As mentioned in a previous post “Keynesian vs. Neo-classical Economics - and what is Heterodox Economics?”, the field loosely described as “heterodox economics” raises difficult questions of human behavior and thinking that challenges the neo-classical view of perfectly rational actors and the efficiency and perfectibility of free markets (the view that we teach in AP Economics). David Ruccio, econ professor at Notre Dame, laments on mainstream economists:

All reasonable arguments are accepted in the marketplace of ideas. Except they (mainstream economists) never read any heterodox economics, and have no idea how the hegemony of their favorite theory shuts out all other ideas…That’s the situation that heterodox economists are trying to change. By using economic theories other than those of the mainstream… By forming journals and associations apart from those of the mainstream (in which their ideas never get aired). And by challenging the mainstream conception of the discipline itself
(including its notions of what science is, and what it means to “think like an economist”).

We do heterodox economics, or what some refer to as political economy—as against economics (which, as Chris correctly argues, has become identified with a tiny number of theoretical approaches). We write about rates of exploitation and the role of power in increasing inequality and the existence of patriarchy and structural racism. Not only do we want to argue that economic actors are sometimes irrational or guided by norms and values; some of us also want to analyze economic institutions and events without even starting from individual actors. Or efficiency. Or constrained optimization.

So, do you feel guilty yet about teaching only the mainstream view in your course? Don’t fret, even Professor Ruccio has to teach his students the neo-classical approach; here’s how he deals with the status quo in his courses:

In all honesty, I mostly prefer not to read maintream economics these days. Either it says nothing of interest, or it gets me very angry. But I teach it, and I teach it in a way that is more rigorous than my mainstream colleagues. Because I teach its basic assumptions (and not as a kind of common sense) and because I present alternative views, heterodox economics. And then I read and do heterodox economics, independently of the mainstream. Because if we spend all our time worrying about mainstream economics, attempting to do mainstream economics (with a tweak here and a changed assumption there), we’ll never get around to developing alternatives.

Professor Ruccio makes an important point here. Before students can become agents of positive change, aware and capable of making the world a better place (and the field of economics a better science) they must first know what needs fixing. I know as much as any AP Econ teacher how rushed this course is, how little time is really left for discussions beyond the basic principles in the syllabus; but in the future, I think I’ll challenge myself and my students to take a little time and find out what alternative approaches to the economic problem are being researched, published, and put into action out there. Technology, the web, blogs: these are the tools that will enable us to easily connect our students to alternative, heterodox economics despite the hectic pace of our AP course. And if your school has access to online journal databases, here’s a few suggestions for economics publications that give a voice to heterodox economists like Professor Ruccio:

The Review of Income and Wealth, the Cambridge Journal of Economics, the European Journal of Comparative Economics, Research in Economic History, Industrial and Corporate Change, CES Ifo Economic Studies, the Eastern Economic Journal, the BNL Quarterly Review and The Economist’s Voice.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Hip Heterodoxy

I just found a link to this long and interesting article about a fledgling field called “heterodox” economics. Heterodox is defined as “not in accordance with established or accepted doctrines or opinions, esp. in theology; unorthodox.”

In the case of heterodox economists, what they don’t believe is the
neoclassical model that anchors the economics profession. Classical
economics refers to the theories laid out by Adam Smith and David
Ricardo in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, which emphasized
the power of the “invisible hand” of the market to promote the division
of labor and economic growth. Smith famously summed up the recipe for
prosperity as “peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of
justice,” with “all the rest being brought about by the natural course
of things.”

There’s a lot to digest in this five page article from the Nation. I think I’ll have to blog it in a few separate posts. This will also be a great article for use in my AP Econ course when we compare the neo-classical version of the vertical Aggregate Supply to the Keynesian horizontal AS curve, and the implications therein regarding use of monetary and fiscal policies to achieve macroeconomic stability.

One line that jumps out at me right now is:

Indeed, the cradle for much of our policy discussions can be found in
the first chapter of just about any introductory economics textbook,
where the basic precepts of the neoclassical framework are described
under the rubric of “thinking like an economist.”

Again, I continue to come across evidence that an education in Economics is absolutely crucial to understanding important issues in all realms of society today. As I continue digesting this important analysis and history of competing economic ideologies, I will continue to think about how to use this in my class next fall, and blog any ideas that come to mind. If you have the time and interest, give this article a read and post your comments here!

Powered by ScribeFire.

Here’s a fascinating article about the importance of learning economics in order to overcome our innate, perhaps genetically ingrained understanding of human exchanges as a zero-sum game, where one person’s gain comes at another’s loss.

Paul H. Rubin - Evolution, Immigration and Trade - washingtonpost.com

Rubin finds several fascinating links between evolutionary biology, psychology, and economics.

“Our primitive ancestors lived in a world that was essentially static; there was little societal or technological change from one generation to the next. This meant that our ancestors lived in a world that was zero sum — if a particular gain happened to one group of humans, it came at the expense of another.”

“Economists have argued for more than two centuries that voluntary trade, whether domestic or international, is positive sum: it benefits both parties, or else the exchange wouldn’t occur.”

This ingrained belief of one person’s gain coming at the expense of someone else leads to dangerous policies such as protection and trade barriers, which as we know limit an economy’s growth and improvements in standards of living. Therefore, learning economics is as important to society’s progress as learning to read is to an individual’s education. Rubin concludes with this interesting insight:

“A useful analogy is between speech and reading. All humans growing up in a normal environment learn to speak, but reading must be taught because it does not come naturally… A deeper understanding of economics is like reading — it must be taught.

America’s success in lowering its barriers to outsiders shows that we can and do learn. But like reading, we must teach each generation anew.”

Powered by ScribeFire.

Marco’s IB Economics Blog: Class Discussion Continued

Marco, in the above post, brings up some serious questions about the science of economics. Good insights, as always Marco. I tend to agree with him on his main idea, that economics as a science tends to perhaps unwittingly make value-based judgments even as economists claim to be objective observers of some fundamental law o