Finite room for construction in China

China's explosive demand will finally drop from its stratospheric level, either because China's economic development falters or because China is finally totally covered over in cement.

That is Rick Bookstaber, a deeply thoughtful blogger on financial markets, in response to Jeremy Grantham's newsletter on "the mother of all paradigm shifts" (i.e., "Days of Abundant Resources and Falling Prices Are Over Forever"), which excited the likes of Cowen and Krugman.

Like Rick I am in the less apocalyptic camp, although for much prosaic reasons (he believes that eventually our resource consumption will decrease as we increasingly lead virtual lives and turn away from material consumption). As Tyler Cowen says, China cannot continue to invest 50% of its GDP forever. There is a long way to go for the world to catch up to rich-world consumption levels, but it also won't happen all at once (apply an optimistic GDP growth rate to your favorite sub-Saharan African country and you'll be shocked at how long it will take to get where China's income is today, even if everything goes well). Resource demand may not be curbed any time soon, but ultimately I have more faith in the power of prices and markets to change behavior than the doomsayers seem to.

Surging commodities ≠ inflation?

Paul Krugman doesn't think surging commodity prices will drive high inflation (and Michael Roberts agrees). I think they're probably right on balance, but I wish Krugman had plotted year-on-year commodity price and CPI changes on different axes in this graph:

Yes, the magnitude of year-on-year changes as drastically different, but eye-balling it, the directional correlation looks pretty high to me. Granted commodities are a small fraction of the our rich-world expenditures (not the case in poor countries where people spend 50+% of their income on food!); they are mostly wages and rent as Michael correctly points out. But it would also be worth looking back to before 1993, in particular the late 70s (a time of high commodity prices and high inflation), rather than acting as if 15 years of data from a single country proves the point beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Regulation vs. torts

Responding to libertarian commenters, Paul Krugman argues that torts are not nearly as effective as environmental regulations in practice.

Commenters say, but isn’t that an equally strong reason to believe that regulation won’t work either?

Well, here’s the thing: regulation demonstrably does work where tort law doesn’t. Consider the environmental issue: in reality, the perpetrators of oil spills never pay most of the cost; but in reality, environmental regulation has led to much cleaner air and water. (Look up the history of Los Angeles smog or the fate of Lake Erie if you don’t believe me.)

Tyler Cowen dissects Krugman's argument in his typical incisive and dispassionate style, scoring points (except I don't think he's keeping score) like:

There is in fact an agency regulating off-shore drilling and in the case under question it totally failed. How can Lake Erie, an orthogonally related success, be cited but this very directly relevant failure not be mentioned?

As usual, Cowen comes across as eminently sensible and I find it hard to disagree with much that he says. Am I just too rushed, and/or not trying hard enough?

Krugman on environmental economics

Long but excellent article by Paul Krugman on Environmental Economics 101 and the economics of climate change. I also recommend Michael Roberts' addendum and heartily second his emphasis on argiculture, forests and land use which Krugman under-addresses.

One thing I found interesting was Krugman's favorable take on both the legitimacy and the feasibility of carbon tariffs:

To the objection that such a policy would be protectionist, a violation of the principles of free trade, one reply is, So? Keeping world markets open is important, but avoiding planetary catastrophe is a lot more important. In any case, however, you can argue that carbon tariffs are well within the rules of normal trade relations. As long as the tariff imposed on the carbon content of imports is comparable to the cost of domestic carbon licenses, the effect is to charge your own consumers a price that reflects the carbon emitted in what they buy, no matter where it is produced. That should be legal under international-trading rules. In fact, even the World Trade Organization, which is charged with policing trade policies, has published a study suggesting that carbon tariffs would pass muster. [emphasis mine]

These aren't pushover arguments, but my gut reaction is that even if the WTO sanctions this type of action, the reaction from countries like China wouldn't be pretty.

American mercantilism, redux

I was sound asleep in Ethiopia for Obama's State of the Union address, and it wasn't pleasant to wake up to this debrief:

Then there was his disappointing discussion of trade, which included a bizarre promise to double U.S. exports in five years. Does this mean he expects the dollar to drop dramatically? He also announced the launching of "a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security" (more on that topic here), and vowed to "seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are." Nothing here, other than a cursory, noncommittal mention of the Doha round, indicates that Obama views trade as anything other than a zero-sum game. There's a name for this approach to trade: mercantilism.

Macroeconomics has never been my forte, and I was under impression that mercantilism was essentially a discredited 18th-century pre-economic theory. According to Wikipedia, though, it is not that simple, e.g.:

Paul Samuelson, writing within a Keynesian framework, defended mercantilism, writing: "With employment less than full and Net National Product suboptimal, all the debunked mercantilist arguments turn out to be valid."

I'll have to let others who are more educated in these matters sort this out, but my feeling is not good and my populism radar is blinking.

Obama can't seem to keep anyone happy - he managed to promote the one plank of the liberal/progressive agenda that Paul Krugman doesn't agree with.

Not such a bad decade after all

The Roving Bandit excoriates Paul Krugman for his America-centric pessimism about the last decade:

Via The Monkey Cage, apparently Paul Krugman has been whining about the "naughties" and how nothing good happened in America. This is why I don't read Paul Krugman. He focuses too much on America.

Erm Paul, the continuation of the WORLD'S GREATEST ANTI-POVERTY PROGRAMME EVER? NO? NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU?!!

This resonates with the interesting recent writing and forthcoming book by Charles Kenny on "The Success of Development", which argues that aside from growing income (a surprisingly intractable problem), development has succeeded admirably in the last fifty years:

This book explores the bad news and the good news about development. It lays out the evidence on growing income disparities between the global rich and the global poor that are at the heart of a narrative of crisis. And it chronicles the failed search for a silver bullet to overcome economic malaise.

But it also discusses the considerable successes of development. Not least, the evidence for any country being stuck in a Malthusian nightmare is threadbare. The book points to global progress in health, education, civil and political rights, access to infrastructure and even access to beer. This progress is historically unprecedented and has been faster in the developing world than in the developed.

Amartya Sen would of course be proud of this broader conception of what development really means.

See also Tyler Cowen on the "Fruitful Decade for Many in the World" (especially "China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, and much of Africa"), and via his MR blogging partner Alex Tabarrok, this post on and list of African successes:

In recent years, a broad swath of African countries has begun to show a remarkable dynamism. From Mozambique’s impressive growth rate (averaging 8% p.a. for more than a decade) to Kenya’s emergence as a major global supplier of cut flowers, from M-pesa’s mobile phone-based cash transfers to KickStart’s low-cost irrigation technology for small-holder farmers, and from Rwanda’s gorilla tourism to Lagos City’s Bus Rapid Transit system, Africa is seeing a dramatic transformation. This favorable trend is spurred by, among other things, stronger leadership, better governance, an improving business climate, innovation, market-based solutions, a more involved citizenry, and an increasing reliance on home-grown solutions. More and more, Africans are driving African development.

This time speculation DID drive up oil prices

Paul Krugman made some outstanding contributions to the fascinating blog debate on oil speculation about a year ago (which, incidentally, catalyzed my interest in the economics blogosphere). Then, he argued speculation wasn't a major factor because oil inventories weren't rising; this week, he asserted with scintillatingly simplicity that speculation drove the recent run-up in oil prices because - you guessed it - inventories are rising.

Hard to argue with that. I'm not always a fan of Krugman's argumentative style, but moments of brilliant clarity like the above attest to his Nobel-worthiness.

Further kudos to Paul for a healthier reaction than the CFTC and various European heads of state:

Now, “speculation” isn’t a synonym for “bad”. If the underlying assumptions that seem to have been driving oil markets were right — namely, that a vigorous recovery is just around the corner, and demand will shoot up soon — then it would be perfectly reasonable to accumulate oil inventories right now. But those assumptions are looking less reasonable by the day.

There's no nefarious market manipulation here - just people betting (unfortunately, probably wrongly) that an economic recovery is around the corner.

Via Greed, Green and Grains; the referring post is good in its own right and I'll post on it some time soon.

The ad hominem index

Richard Evans uses the "ad hominem index" to draw a glaring contrast between Greg Mankiw and Paul Krugman. Krugman's arguments are often loaded with personal attacks, whereas Mankiw's are admirably respectful and self-restrained. Although I don't always agree with Mankiw's conclusions, I heartily agree with Evans' conclusion: "Thanks to Milton and Greg for teaching by example."

Michael Roberts of Greed, Green and Grains notes the same argumentative style in Krugman's recent editorial on the treasonous planet-betrayers.