World Economic Forum – Latest Press Releases

The World Economic Forum, a group of researchers, leaders, educators, entrepreneurs and others with a vested interest in global economic performance, assembles an annual list of the world’s nations ranked according to “competitiveness”. This year, for the first time ever, the United States does not top this list, instead, Switzerland has been promoted to the status of global competitiveness leader.

What does this ranking really mean?

Competitive economies are those that have in place factors driving the productivity enhancements on which their present and future prosperity is built. A competitiveness-supporting economic environment can help national economies to weather business cycle downturns and ensure that the mechanisms enabling solid economic performance going into the future are in place.”

Competitivness means a nation posesses an evnvironment that leads to improvements in the productivity of its resources, most importantly labor. America, with record budget deficits, in the trillions of dollars, faces a future of tight budgets financed by government borrowing, which eventually means higher taxes and less ability for government to spend on public goods like education and health.

America’s demotion in the rankings is attributable to falling expectations about the country’s future growth potential rather than concerns about its current economic slowdown. Switzerland has also been in a recession for the last year, although due to targeted fiscal policies unemployment has remained low, near its level before the recession begain (around 4%).

The index used to rank countries is based on several factors:

The GCI is based on 12 pillars of competitiveness, providing a comprehensive picture of the competitiveness landscape in countries around the world at all stages of development. The pillars include Institutions, Infrastructure, Macroeconomic Stability, Health and Primary Education, Higher Education and Training, Goods Market Efficiency, Labour Market Efficiency, Financial Market Sophistication, Technological Readiness, Market Size, Business Sophistication, and Innovation.

Discussion Questions:

1. How can a nation’s labor productivity be improved by making policies aimed at improving three of the factors measured by the GCI identified above?
2. How does America’s gigantic budget deficit ($1.8 trillion) threaten its future ability to provide its citizens with the “pillars” identified above?
3. Does economic integration with the global economy improve or limit a country’s ability to achieve economic competitiveness? Explain your answer.

I wonder how many people in countries like Switzerland, Brazil, Canada, Russia, and China, and the United States would be surprised to learn that prices of products and services in their countries have become much less expensive over the years.

Say what? You must be crazy, you say! Prices are rising way too fast!

Yes, most citizens see their purchases as becoming more expensive when, in actuality, things are becoming less expensive. Of course, the paradox is that although nominal prices (the actual price tag) are, in fact, increasing, nominal income (the average wage or salary) has been growing faster. This is a topic that in economics is called “real income” or a measurement that compares a nation’s income growth relative to the growth in prices that the same income buys.

Let’s take some specific facts for the United States:
In the United States real median household income grew from $41,318 to $50,811 from 1970 through 2006 for a total percentage gain of 23% (source: Pew Research Center). Both of the aforementioned median household incomes are stated in 2008 or current dollars which makes the comparison valid. Median household income is an attempt to quantify the progress that the “middle American” family or typical family has made. So, in short, the median household in America can buy 23% more with their income today than they could in 1970. In other words, relative prices are lower to income.

If we look at the same United States income data over the same period for real average household income, there is real income growth of nearly 60%. The higher growth (60%) in real incomes for the average household versus the median (middle) growth rate (23%) is explained by the fact that much of the growth in United States’ real incomes has accrued disproportionately to the college educated & entrepreneurs driving up real income growth rates much faster for the average than the median or middle household. (Hint: continue your education!)

Now let’s get back to the main premise of the title of this blog and the opening assertion that prices are lower than ever. What we are really saying is that you have to benchmark price increases to income increases to really understand whether things are becoming more expensive. The vast majority of products & services are cheaper today in all nations than they have ever been before, which helps explain, excluding the effects of the current recession, why more citizens than ever before can afford to own their own houses, drive more and better cars, and are likely to have cable, cell phones, and computers. The reason we are led to believe differently is because we are victims of our own human nature, which often causes us to focus on the problem areas (rising prices) and not the benefits (incomes that are rising faster). Most citizens’ focus expands out to the last dollar of their incomes and they quickly notice those select products that are rising faster than others like health care, gasoline prices, and education! Hey, even gasoline prices are not at an all relative price high. If gasoline prices in the United States are restated for inflation, or set to comparable 2009 dollars, they are $2.60 per gallon today vs. $3.17 in 1981 and $3.50 in 1918!

Now, you may say to yourself that statistics can lie or mislead and you are sure in your gut that things are getting more expensive relatively. You can try to validate that incorrect “gut feeling” by examining whether your country’s middle class is enjoying less or more products and services. “Real income” really is just a measurement of the quantity and quality of products and services that you have. For example, the average American household has larger homes, more cars, more air conditioning, more gadgets, and better healthcare & prescription drugs than, say, 20 years ago.

But let’s end this blog with a concern. Although everything noted above is accurate, the pace of real income growth has been relatively slow over the last 10 years, especially for the middle class in the United States. Most of that growth in real income mentioned above has occurred up until this current decade. For the last 10 years, median family income growth in the U.S. has been very small and the average income growth has been higher but below the U.S. historical experience. There are many reasons for this slowdown in real income growth, but three big reasons are that

1. the U.S. has now had two recessions this decade (2001 and 2007-current, versus our historical average of only 1 per decade), and
2. energy and health care prices have risen much faster, and
3. foreign labor competition and technology advancement has kept the uneducated/unskilled U.S. workers real income relatively stagnant. More than ever before, a good education is the ticket to your economic future!

Discussion Questions:

1. Inflation is bad, right? Well, what if average prices rise by 2% a year but average incomes rise by 3%. What happens to real income in this situation? Is the average household better or worse off in such a scenario?
2. How have trade and globalization contributed to rising real wages in America and Swizerland?
3. How have trade and globalization contributed to falling nominal wages in America and Switzerland?
4. How do improvments in technology contribute to rising real wages in both developed and developing economies? What about health and education?
5. What types of policies can government pursue to help raise the real wages of the nation’s workers?

One of the greatest “ah-ha” moments in all of economics is when an economics’ student or citizen learns for the first time that every time a domestic buyer purchases a foreign product or import that those same U.S. dollars spent on the foreign product go to a U.S.-based company, not a foreign company. Yes, I am telling you that when you (or Wal-Mart) buy Chinese shirts, your same U.S. dollars spent quickly end up in the hands of, say, Apple, Microsoft, Garmin, or General Electric to increase U.S. employment, profits, and U.S. stock prices!

I decided to write this particular blog because of the fact that the recently passed $800 Billion U.S. stimulus bill has some “buy American” provisions within it. Based on an intuitive hunch, I believe that over 99% of adult Americans believe that these “protectionist” clauses somehow help our economy. Yes, the vast majority of U.S. adults believe that it is clearly more advantageous to “buy American” in order to keep the money or wealth within America in order to increase U.S. employment, profits, and U.S. stock prices. In true economic fact, however, if U.S. citizens “buy American” solely out of patriotism (and not because they think it is a superior product) they actually HURT America because the U.S. dollars spent out of patriotism on that American company are, therefore, unintentionally withheld from another more efficient and deserving American country via the “trade loop”.

Let me try to explain this “trade loop” in more detail so that I may actually be able to convince you of this amazing “180 degree” revelation: “Buy American” is Un-American

Let’s say that the United States (we’ll say Wal-Mart) decides to buy many shirts costing $400 from a Chinese shirt manufacturer, in lieu of buying those same shirts from, say, a shirt manufacturer in Elon, North Carolina (USA). The first key point is that when Wal-Mart buys the shirts from China for $400 it can only pay China with US dollars. Why? Because Wal-Mart has only US dollars! It has no Chinese currency (Yuan). It literally drains its bank account of US dollars that are transferred/paid to China! The second key point is that when China receives that same $400 US dollars for the shirts, China cannot, unfortunately, spend any of the $400 in its own economy since only the Yuan is accepted as a medium of exchange in China! China is now forced to either throw the U.S. currency away (not advised!), or immediately spend the money back to the USA (advised!).

In summary, China has initially traded a product (shirts!) for paper (US dollars!), and those US dollars cannot be spent in China. For China to receive any value at all for the shirts it sent to America, China must now spend the $400 back into the US economy for, say, a global positioning system (GPS) from FleetMatics out of Waverly, Massachusetts (USA). Cutting through to simplicity, in essence, it’s almost as if Wal-Mart (USA) just paid FleetMatics (USA) $400 directly!

Yes, the economic “punch line” is that all spending by the domestic nation on foreign products (imports), in turn, are spent immediately back to the domestic nation increasing the domestic nation’s employment, income, and standard of living. (Note; this is also shown and reported in a nation’s balance of payments schedule if you are skeptical about what you are reading!)

And, yes, let’s not forget about that Elon, North Carolina shirt maker that did not get the original $400 from Wal-Mart in our above example! Any good economy promotes competition and I am excited to see if that North Carolina shirt manufacturer can “raise their game” (increase productivity and/or quality), and hopefully get the next shirt contract from Wal-Mart! If not, well, that North Carolina firm may just have to close down. But remember, the key point, the $400 spent for the shirts went to Fleetmatics in Waverly, Massachusetts, in lieu of the Elon, North Carolina shirt manufacturer. If you would have “bought American” even though the Chinese shirts were preferable, you would have prevented the more effective U.S. business in Waverly from getting your U.S. dollars by giving them to the less efficient Elon manufacturer. In short, you would have contributed to American inefficiency and slowing productivity, hurting our country! And that is un-American!

Now, you may be thinking the following if you have a little economics’ background: “But the US has a growing trade deficit with China, so China may not immediately buy that GPS system from FleetMatics for $400. And, you are correct, but that is also not a problem for either the United States or China. What China is really doing right now is deciding to temporarily save or invest a minority percentage of their US dollars received form U.S. import purchases. Said another way, China is not buying as many GPS’ as the US is buying shirts and, of course, we call that phenomenon the US trade deficit which immediately seems to speak “problem”. But it is really not as big a problem as most people think! China is still spending their “saved” US dollars back into the US economy, but in different ways. China is saving and investing some of those US dollars directly into the United States economy by building plants in America, buying US stock to fund American companies’ expansions, and temporarily saving some of their dollars, for future US purchases, by buying US bonds to help the US government pay for other US government initiatives necessitating borrowing. Eventually, China will sell these US bonds and be forced to use those U.S. dollars to buy that GPS system or build more plants to employ more Americans!

In summary, when citizens of any country in the world buy the product that is best for them based on a combination of quality and price, they will be taking the most patriotic action possible to help their own country they love so much! If a domestic citizen sees the foreign product as a better alternative to the domestic product, buy it! Your money spent will immediately find its way back through the “trade loop” to another business within your country!

Of course, this is why all economists from around the world know that international trade, and not protectionism, helps a country’s standard of living and promotes efficiency and rising standard of livings!

Automakers turnaround plans sent to Congress – Dec. 2, 2008

…and hopefully every other American with a functioning cerebral cortex. Ford Motor Company announced today its ambitious plan to cut costs and restore its profitability as it appeals once again to Washington for a $25 billion “low-interest bridge loan” (aka bailout).

The company announced that the salary of Ford CEO Alan Mulally would be cut to $1 a year if Ford actually borrowed money from the government. When Mulally appeared before the House Financial Services Committee last month, he did not agree to the suggestion of such a paycut…

Ford and GM also announced plans to get rid of corporate jets. Mulally, Wagoner and Nardelli were all roundly criticized at a House hearing last month when they admitted they had each flown their corporate jets to Washington to ask for help…

Mulally and Wagoner will be driving to Washington in hybrid vehicles made by their companies when they return to Capitol Hill later this week to make their case for loans. Nardelli is also not planning to fly to Washington but Chrysler has not disclosed any more specifics of his travel plans.

So the CEOs of the three largest auto companies are agreeing to be exploited for one year by accepting a salary of one dollar. The combined savings from the salary cuts of the three companies’ CEOs  equal roughly $6 million, or about 0.024% of the sum the companies are asking for from the government. Selling corporate jets during a recession when demand for such frivolous luxuries is at a record low will also do little to cut the costs of the incredibly inefficient US automakers.

As for any serious cost cutting plans, Ford had little to report:

…the Ford plan is perhaps most notable for what it did not include. The company did not mention that it would be dropping any brand or unprofitable models…

There was also no announcement of additional plants being closed or capacity being eliminated. Ford said it continues to work with its unions and dealers to achieve additional savings, but it did not set any cost savings targets for those discussions.

Ford highlighted many of the cuts it has already made, including closing 14 plants and reducing salaried personnel by 36% over the past three years. The company also touted labor cost savings that would bring the cost of factory workers’ pay and benefits close to those of the nonunion U.S. plants operated by Asian automakers

Real cost savings will only be achieved by the further closing of plants. With the economy in a deep recession and auto sales at their lowest in decades, the demand for new cars is just not there. Until Ford and its American competitors begin adjusting their plant capacities to the realities of market demand, the chances of achieving profitibility seem slim.

Allow me to make a connection between the situation faced by American auto makers and a basic economic concept we are currently studying in Microeconomics class. Firms, as any first year econ student knows, are profit maximizers. In fact, all companies are trying to make the same thing as all other companies, profits. When a firm experiences negative profits, or losses, as American auto makers are today, it can do one of two things to restore profitability: 1) Increase its revenues or 2) Lower its costs. Since demand for new cars is so low, the revenue increasing option is just not there, so American auto makers must reduce costs to restore profits.

There are two main types of costs we study in microeconomics. Short-run and long-run costs. In the short-run, which in the case of the auto industry we can consider the last few months since the financial crisis began, firms can do one thing to lower their costs: reduce the use of labor. Workers can be asked to take unpaid vacations, jobs can be eliminated, work hours can be cut back. In the short-run, plant size is fixed, meaning firms cannot add nor eliminate capital and land resources. The only variable resource is labor. By “reducing salaried personnel by 36% over the past three years” Ford has taken steps to lower its short-run costs of production.

Long-run costs must also be considered when firms are faced with negative profits. The long-run in the automobile industry is considered the period of time over which auto makers can either add new plant facilities or shut down existing facilities, lowering the costs of capital and land to firms. Long-run cost reductions have also been undertaken by Ford, including “closing 14 plants… over the past three years”.

Clearly, Ford has made an effort to reduce short-run labor costs and long-run capital costs by eliminating some of its work force and closing some of its factories in recent years. But today, as the US officially enters what is likely to be a deep, long recession, the announcement by Ford and its competitors that its new strategy for further cutting costs hinges on paying its CEOs one dollar and making them travel across the country in hybrid cars represents a laughable insult to the intelligence of high school Econ students.

Discussion Questions:

1. What is the “variable resource” that firms can use less of in the short-run if cost reductions are needed?
2. In Microeconomics, we sometimes refer to the long-run as the “variable plant period”. Explain the meaning of this concept.
3. The law of diminishing marginal returns would indicate that if Ford were to close additional factories, it would almost certainly have to simultaneously lay off thousands of additional workers. What is the law of diminishing marginal returns and why does it require firms to lay off workers as plants are closed?

One of the many reasons that I find the study of economics so fascinating is that what so often appears to be a negative situation to the average citizen is actually a positive one. In other words: “down is often up” and “black is often white”. One of my favorite examples of this “180 degree moment”, and why I love to teach AP Macroeconomics, relates to the study of unemployment.

FT.com / Asia-Pacific / China – China to focus on curbing inflation

Growth – the ultimate macroeconomic policy goal. Growth leads to improvements in material well-being; by definition it means more output per person. Growth also enriches society in other ways: more tax revenue for governments means more to spend on public goods like education, health care, and infrastructure, which all contribute to development of human capital, standard of living, and productivity. But is there such a thing as too much of a good thing? When it comes to growth in China, that may be the case.

According to Chinese premier Wen Jiabao:

“The primary task for macro­economic regulation this year is to prevent fast economic growth from becoming overheated growth…”

So, fast growth is good, but overheated growth is bad?

I once had a Jeep Wrangler that when I drove it across the country, anytime it hit 70 mph it started to overheat… is that the kind of overheating China’s economy is experiencing? Well, kind of, yes.

The reason my Jeep would overheat was that the pistons in the engine had to move so rapidly to keep the engine going at enough RPMs that the friction created overwhelmed the engine’s ability to properly cool itself. In China, the pistons can be compared to the manufacturing industry and agricultural sectors, which last year were stretched to their limits to meet not only rising demand from foreigners for China’s output, but record levels of domestic demand as well.

For the first time last year, China’s domestic consumption made up a larger component of the country’s GDP than investment. Returning to our metaphor, the engine was forced to work harder than usual, but I hadn’t spent enough to maintain the engine, so it was not properly lubed and tuned for the stress of long-distance travel. Maintenance on an engine is important, otherwise it will wear out and overheat while driving at high speeds over long distances. Likewise, investment in new capital is vital for an economy to keep from overheating as it grows at high rates over long periods of time.

Rising consumption and exports, without a corresponding increase in investment, means capital depreciates too quickly to meet Chinese and the world’s demand for output. In terms of our macroeconomic model, AD shifts out more rapidly than AS, causing inflation:

“the premier said the political priority was to tame consumer price inflation, which hit an 11-year high of 7.1 per cent in January.”

Rising consumption and net exports puts upward pressure on prices in China. To worsen matters, food prices have experienced record increases in the last year, making the matter especially hard for China’s urban poor, separated from the farmland and its produce as they are.

Investment, while an expenditure itself, tends not to contribute to inflation (as might be thought, since it shifts AD outward), but mitigate it, due to the supply-side effect attributable to the increase in capital and productivity that it creates. To combat rising food prices in China, Mr. Wen plans to encourage investment in the agricultural sector through targeted government intervention:

The government would expand agricultural commodity production, strictly control industrial grain use, establish an early-warning system to monitor supply and demand, and strengthen “market oversight” and “price inspections”, he said.

Subsidies for the poor would be increased and provincial governors and mayors held directly responsible for ensuring basic food supplies, said Mr Wen.

Overall China’s picture is looking rather rosy, it would appear. While 7.1% inflation is certainly something to fear, it seems to be manageable in the context of a global slowdown in income growth, and the corresponding decrease in demand for Chinese exports that implies. Combined with a strengthening RMB, China can look forward to a slower rate of growth in 2008, (“a now routine annual ‘target’ of 8 percent expansion in [GDP]“). The trick for the government is to foster investment and productivity growth in the agricultural sector to keep food prices down in the face of growing demand for meat products among China’s middle class.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Foreign Policy: Why We Trade

Professor Russ Roberts, host of the EconTalk podcast, has an essay in the latest issues of Foreign Policy journal titled “Why We Trade”. In this piece, Roberts defends the benefits of trade from a broad perspective, beyond the popular political view of trade, usually along the lines of “exports, good – imports, bad”. Roberts compares this line of thinking (characteristic of presidential candidates of both the Republican and Democratic parties), to the 14th century, pre-Adam Smith view of world trade, known as mercantilism.

Mercantilism was a view of global economic interaction that placed emphasis on the accumulation of gold and other precious metals from abroad in exchange for your country’s exports. The doctrine failed to recognize the importance of imports from abroad, as this was viewed as a loss of wealth to foreigners. Mercantilists viewed wealth in terms of bullion or the amount of precious metals a country owned. Today, of course, our understanding of wealth has evolved to account for the amount of output, or products (goods and services), we are able to consume. Herein lies the flaw in the rhetoric of modern politicians who, “are always talking about the necessity of other countries’ opening their markets to American products. They never mention the virtues of opening U.S. markets to foreign products.”

Continue Reading »

How the World Works: Who Invented Calculus? – Salon.com

IB students, here’s a blog post you’ll want to read closely once we start studying economic development later this semester. Andrew Leonard at Salon.com refers to a study titled “Does Economic Growth Reduce Fertility? Rural India 1971-1999″.

Interesting stuff. Leonard points out a peculiar paradox of growth in India:

India’s Green Revolution has been criticized by those who wonder if an agricultural model reliant on large inputs of fertilizers and pesticides is environmentally sustainable over the long run. But if in the short run these spikes in agricultural productivity contribute to population stabilization, then we have a nifty paradox: a (possibly) unsustainable agricultural model contributing to (possibly) sustainable population levels.

This article and the study it refers to might make for an interesting commentary for your internal assessment, or as a source for an extended essay on growth and development. Any opinions on the supposed correlation between economic growth and decreased fertility?

Powered by ScribeFire.