Thursday, 24 June 2010

Would you buy this "sound system" for $2,327?


Would you buy this "sound system" to the left for $2,326?? (that is how much $379.00 is in 2009 dollars)

There are many ways to measure living standards--some measured on an explicit level and some more implicit. For instance, the way we calculate GDP is a measure of social welfare (largely explicit) but so is GNH (Gross National Happiness) which includes implicit welfare (i.e.environmental degradation/enhancement)...Below is a simple comparison of a product(s) produced in 1964 and 2010 contribute(ed) to leisure and the number of hours it took(takes) the "average" person to work to purchase that item. Were the "good ol' days" so good? I wonder how this hourly wage relative to the price/quantity of a good/service holds up over a broad range of goods and services (food, education, health care, etc). This is assuming that things today had some semblance of something produced 40 years ago...(HT: Another GREAT and relevant post from Carpe Diem)
In 1964, here's what the average American consumer could afford after working 152 hours (almost a full month) at the average hourly wage then of $2.50: a "moderately priced, excellent stereo system" from Radio Shack on sale for $379.95.


In contrast, the typical consumer today working 152 hours at the current average hourly wage of $19 could afford this "cornucopia" of electronic goods:

Link HERE

Cant think of clever tagline today---But interesting post on why you may not be able to find a job...


Why has job growth, as we come out of recessions, been so tepid? Don't business need employees as demand picks up? Well, yes and no. It depends on the type of industry and the changes going on in the economy even as we experience a recession. In large part, technology advancement has not taken a "break" as a result of recessions as far back as the early 1990's. It seems to have flourished very well, overall (think phones, computers, tele-communications, transportation, etc) in spite of overall economic conditions.
As firms start to recover with smaller workforces their first instinct is to not over-commit in terms of hiring people. People are expensive! At the margins, they look for a competitive edge that will reduce the cost of producing as they ramp up production again. The first place to realistically look is at technology. A question an entrepreneur may ask themselves: What technology has emerged since my last big investment that may help me (1) reduce costs or (2) increase my productivity? Basically they are looking for ways to efficiently replace labor (L) with some sort of technology (in economics we call that Capital or "K" for Kapital).
If there is adoptable technology available, and it meets the above two requirements, then the prudent business owner will "substitute "K" for "L" Those workers who previously held those jobs and were laid off one or two years ago will re-enter the job market to find the job they performed is no longer available---time and technology has passed them by. If the new technology becomes widely adopted, then workers cannot move ANYWHERE to find their "old job"--it has been automated out of existence.
This is the definition of someone who is "structurally unemployed" (defined further below). They must re-train/re-educate to find other job. For example, re-train to produce/maintain the technology that REPLACED them at their previous job (irony?).
If structural unemployment is the dominate form of unemployment then it is much more difficult to solve then simply spending money to increase demand for goods/ services and assuming employers will hire to meet that new demand. Policy makers should read between the lines to determine what is really going on with the workforce and propose policies that will address the root problem...

Update on Structural Unemployment
One key question in considering demand-side economic policies, such as fiscal stimulus and other deficit spending, is whether the elevated unemployment rate is a product of cyclical or structural forces. If unemployment is cyclical, then boosting aggregate demand would mean that employers would re-hire workers earlier and save the economy a lot of pain. If it's structural, though, meaning that the economy is undergoing significant changes and there is now a substantial mismatch between workers' skills and the kinds of skills needed throughout the economy, measures aimed at increasing short-term demand might not do much to help out the unemployed.
In 2003 the NY Fed published a paper examining whether the 1990-91 and 2001 "jobless recoveries" were caused by structural factors. The authors, Erica Groshen and Simon Potter, found evidence that these recessions, compared to past recessions, featured more "permanent relocation" of workers among industries. In other words, when the recessions were over and recovery had taken place, more industries were net gainers or losers of employment. Some industries were left permanently smaller than they were before the recession, meaning that workers couldn't return to those sectors even when demand and GDP had recovered.
Menbere Shiferaw and John Robertson, economists at the Atlanta Fed, have replicated one of Groshen and Potter's key graphs depicting unemployment in the 2001 recession:



***The one outlier in the top right corner, if you can't make it out, is the "federal government" industry. It gained jobs during the recession and has gained jobs far faster than any other industry during the recovery

Does the Yuan make 'You Yawn"? Well, WAKE UP and "Appreciate" it!!


When we (US) buy something from China, somewhere along the line a currency exchange has to take place. We exchange US Dollars for Chinese Yuan (click HERE for its current value relative to the dollar) so we can buy their stuff. Because we buy much more than they buy from us, the net flow of dollars is towards China to buy the yuan. This SHOULD increase the value of the yuan because demand for it has, on net, increased. However, it does not because the Chinese maintain a FIXED exchange rate with the dollar. If they see the yuan appreciating in the international markets, they intervene by BUYING dollars and SUPPLYING Yuan to the international market, thereby preventing the YUAN from appreciating in value. They want a relatively "cheap" Yuan because after the currency exchange takes place it makes Chinese goods less expensive. If the yuan appreciates then when we exchange our dollars for yuan then we have to give up MORE dollars to buy the same amount of yuan we did before, ergo, making Chinese goods relatively MORE expensive. This would happen if the Chinese let the yuan "float" in a flexible exchange rate regime. In other words, if they let the fundamentals of supply and demand do its work then the yuan would appreciate and the dollar would depreciate against each other.
This is a major trade and political issue. The Chinese today signaled that they will let the Yuan appreciate in a "slow, orderly" process. We will see...Because they are export focused, this will be difficult for them to do....Below is a list of the winners, losers and uncertainty with an appreciating yuan...IT DOES AFFECT YOU!!!!

Who cares about the Chinese yuan?

THE WINNERS:
•Global trade, and all those involved in it, may be able to breathe a collective sigh of relief. Although at this stage the Chinese announcement is woefully short on detail, it should go some way to silencing the growing drumbeat of trade war emanating from Washington DC and elsewhere.
•Foreign manufacturers that compete with Chinese imports will be smiling - think of toymakers and clothes makers in the US. Also, other big exporting countries such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Germany will gain a competitive advantage over their Chinese rivals.
•Foreign companies (particularly in the US) that export to China will become more competitive. These include carmakers, technology companies and engineering firms. The price of their goods in yuan will be cheaper, and the money they earn in China will be worth more in their home currency.
•Chinese companies that have borrowed in dollars will find the cost of their debt falls. Big winners here will include the Chinese airlines.
•Long-suffering Chinese consumers will benefit from cheaper imports. However, households in China will continue to suffer from artificially low deposit rates, which mean they earn very little return on their savings.
•Speculators who anticipated the central bank's announcement borrowed in dollars and bought Chinese assets, including property and Chinese shares. Others speculated on currency forward contracts, which have jumped in value on Monday.
•Central bankers in China have been lobbying the government to let it do more to combat rising inflation in China. They have been fighting over policy with export industry lobbyists. A stronger yuan will help by lowering export prices and cooling the Chinese economy. The move will also make it easier for other Asian central banks, who face rising inflation, to raise interest rates and let their own currencies appreciate.
THE LOSERS:
•Chinese exporters, including foreign companies that own factories in China, will become less competitive. These companies pay wages in yuan, but set export prices in dollars and euros. Some, such as Toyota and Honda, are already facing strikes by Chinese workers to raise their wages. Many exporters operate on very thin profit margins that could be wiped out by the yuan's rise.
Foreign consumers, especially in the US, will have to pay more for goods made in China.
•A rising yuan could be bad news for the environment, as it will make it cheaper for China to import raw materials and energy resources. The country's heavy industries are already widely criticised for poor standards of air, water and soil pollution. China is also the world's biggest growing producer of carbon emissions.
•The People's Bank of China will be a big loser, even though its bankers may be happy about the policy change. Because of the central bank's currency policy, it has borrowed billions in yuan and invested it in US treasuries. The value of those treasuries in yuan is now set to fall, causing the central bank hundreds of millions in paper losses.
UNCERTAIN:
•Europe may not benefit from the new yuan policy as much as the US. The yuan is currently pegged to the dollar, so any "flexibility" will directly impact US competitiveness. Indeed, the eurozone and the UK may actually lose out if Beijing decides to start linking its currency more closely to the euro and the pound. If the Chinese central bank starts buying these currencies, it will push their value up, making Europe less competitive.
•Chinese heavy industry will need to pay less for the commodities - particularly metals and energy - that they import. For companies that focus on exports, this will go some way to alleviating their loss of competitiveness. But for companies that focus on the domestic Chinese market, cheaper raw materials are an unmitigated plus.
•Commodities exporters such as Russia, Australia and Brazil may find demand from China - their most important customer - cools, as the demand from Chinese exporters cools. Alternatively, demand may pick up, as China can buy more raw materials at a cheaper price for their domestic markets. Commodity markets took the news very well so many clearly predict the latter. •The new yuan policy may prove a pyrrhic victory for the US politicians who have lobbied so much for it. There will after all be no immediate rise in the yuan. But the congressmen currently preparing a retaliatory trade sanctions bill against China may find the wind taken out of their sails. The US Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, had started talking tough ahead of the G20 summit in Toronto later this month, but may now revert to quiet diplomacy.

Monday, 21 June 2010

Excellent article on what went wrong here in Spain

Retrato de un paĆ­s en crisis

Education = Earning Power. More education = More Earning Power. Nice graph illustrating this for you...


"In 1980, an American with a college degree earned about 30 percent more than an American who stopped education at high school. But, in recent years, a person with a college education earned roughly 70 percent more (see chart above). Meanwhile, the premium for having a graduate degree increased from roughly 50 percent in 1980 to well over 100 percent today. The labor market is placing a greater emphasis on education, dispensing rapidly rising rewards to those who stay in school the longest""...See Carpe Diem for more
One of the primary reasons we have income inequality gap in the US is because we have an education gap. In general, more education translates into more income from the creation of new/improved goods and services. Doubt it? If you are of a certain age think back to when you were young---is there more new "stuff" than there was before? Is it of better quality and less expensive, relative to amount of income you make today? Higher education converging with significant technological breakthroughs (made possible by higher education?) creates more wealth opportunities for the educated. If one is not advancing their skills through advanced training or other formal education then you will be left behind...GET YOURSELF SOME!! :)

I know it is shallow and out of vogue, but sometimes basic economic principles work out---who would have thought?...


"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they know about what they imagine they can design"--F.A. Hayek

Within the fist 150 pages, or so, of ANY introductory Economics textbook you will find instruction on the effects of price controls by the government. The two primary price controls are Price Ceilings and Price Floors. The two articles below are excellent examples of Price Ceilings and their predictable consequences. Price ceilings are government set prices of goods/services that are below the current market equilibrium prices of said goods/services, which were presumably determined through the market mechanism of supply and demand. Price ceilings tend to create shortages in the market place because (1) the price is not high enough for producers to supply the market profitably therefore the quantity supplied to the market decreases or (2) there is ample supply but suppliers with-hold the goods because they can get a higher price on the "black market ", which is a subset of the informal economy as it is referred to in more board terms. The second reason may be the culprit in the short run as suppliers do their best to keep adequate inventory or meet the market price in the informal economy (be "greedy", if you will). However, the debilitating effects of a price ceiling in the long run will be to effectively create chronic shortages of a good in the market place. If the private market price, where supply equals demand, REALLY reflects the cost of producing a good and the government deems that too high and mandates a lower price, then it is a prescription for decreases in the quantity supplied hence shortages of the good.

Hugo Chavez Spearheads Raids as Food Prices Skyrocket
""Mountains of rotting food found at a government warehouse, soaring prices and soldiers raiding wholesalers accused of hoarding: Food supply is the latest battle in President Hugo Chavez's socialist revolution....Much of the wasted food, including powdered milk and meat, was found last month in the buildup to legislative elections in September. The scandal is humiliating for Chavez, who accuses wealthy elites of fueling inflation and causing shortages of products such as meat, sugar and milk by hoarding food...Food prices are up 41 percent in the last 12 months during a deep recession, government figures show, despite the government's growing network of state-run supermarkets that sell at discounts of up to 40 percent and are popular with his poor supporters...."We are bringing order to prices," Trade Minister Richard Canan told Reuters during the Catia raid. "There are traders who are taking these products to the black market ... That is a crime and our government will continue to target these stores."
Philippine Price Controls Hamper Rise of Generics

The Philippines recent embrace of drug-price controls to lower the cost of life-saving medications is creating some unexpected problems—including crimping the supply of inexpensive generic drugs. The country's president, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, was eager to reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals in a nation where a third of its 95 million citizens live on around $2 a day. Last August, she used new regulations to cut the cost of five widely used medications, including Pfizer Inc.'s Norvasc hypertension drug and GlaxoSmithKline PLC's Augmentin antibiotic. Facing mandatory price cuts, drug companies in the Philippines cut the prices of an additional 16 drugs, and in February agreed to slash the prices of frequently prescribed medicines
Industry analysts and executives said the price caps have unintentionally knocked the wind out of a nascent generic-drugs industry that had sprung up here. Lower-priced brand- name drugs are pressuring these low-cost producers, and creating a policy challenge for President-elect Benigno Aquino III, who takes over at the end of June.


Edward Isaac, executive director of the Philippine Chamber of the Pharmaceutical Industry, said price controls and the threat of more caps have lowered the cost of some brand-name drugs to near those of generic competitors. Pfizer's Norvasc was cut to about 22 pesos, or 47 cents, for a five milligram tablet, from over 44 pesos.
"What's happening now is that when the price of Norvasc, for example, is cut, the generics have to slash their own prices," Mr. Isaac said.
Declining profits have some drug retailers putting expansion plans on hold. "We've not opened any new stores since the price controls were introduced," said Leonila Ocampo, vice president of Manila-based MedExpress. The drugstore chain has seen sales volumes drop since the price controls were introduced. "Our margins are under pressure, and if there's no profit, I don't know what will happen," said Ms. Ocampo.
Another drug store operator, Florecita Intal of Stardust Drugs & Medical Supplies Corp., said lower revenues from the branded-drug price caps restricts her ability to expand and offer less expensive generics. She fears smaller retailers might not survive.

"China exports every six hours what the US exported in ALL of 1978"

A fact from this book. WOW! My, how has trade changed...

40 Great Inspirational Speeches from movies mashed into one Great Speech


Go HERE to see more mash-ups on a variety of topics...Mucho entertainment and a little education to boot!!

Do you self correct?? If so, then your sign is Microeconomics. If not, then it is Macroeconomics...Here's your sign...


Microeconomic and Macroeconomic Excess Supply

A rather simple (by that I mean in layman's terms) explanation of how markets clear, or don't clear, in a Microeconomic vs Macroeconomic sense from Professor Brad Delong. The writer is suggesting, in a microeconomics sense, markets clear pretty well on their own as business and workers adjust to changes in market conditions, whether it is from creative destruction, out-sourcing, off-shoring, etc. Resources (land, labor, capital, entrepreneurship) shift to production more desired by society through the mechanism of supply and demand.

""...Overall unemployment may rise a bit or for a while as this process of adjustment takes place--it depends whether entrepreneurs and producers in the expanding industry where excess demand emerges are more or less on the ball, keen-eyed, and keen-witted than those in the industry where excess supply emerges and where businesses shrink. But the process of adjustment, even with frictional unemployment while it takes place, is a good thing--it makes us all richer. Attempts to stop it in its tracks or short-circuit its mechanisms are counterproductive and harmful. The end of the process comes and excess demand and supply are eliminated when there are more people making the things that are wanted more and fewer people making the things that are wanted less...."""However, he suggests as you move to the Macroeconomic level this relationship breaks down.
""...But in macroeconomics things are different. The excess supply is economy-wide--throughout all commodity markets, producing supply in excess of demand for goods, services, labor, and capacity. Producers and entrepreneurs respond to an aggregate demand shortfall just as individual producers respond to a particular shortfall of demand for their products: they hold sales to liquidate inventories, they cut prices, they cut wages to try to preserve margins, they fire workers. In the macroeconomic case, the dynamic process that leads to the elimination of excess supply and its counterbalancing excess demand in the microeconomic case gets underway--or, rather, half of it gets underway.
The problem is that the set of industries that are shrinking is made up of pretty-much-everybody. There are no industries that are expanding. The excess demand is not for the products of a goods-and-services producing industry that can rapidly ramp-up production by employing lots more labor. The excess demand is in finance: for means-of-payment, or safe high-quality assets, or for long-duration sales vehicles. There is a rise in unemployment from the flow out of goods-and-services producing industries where the excess supply has appeared. But there is no countervailing flow out of unemployment. How do you put large numbers of people to work making more Federal Reserve notes or increasing the supply of liquid assets that are means-of-payment that are the reserve deposits of banks? How do you shift the flow of production to instantaneously raise the stock of long-duration assets, of claims to wealth that are shares in companies with secure long-run prospects that are vehicles for moving purchasing power across time from the present to the future? You can't...""
In microeconomics, the market "self-corrects" when the economy is expanding and there is room for resources and labor to move to a new level of product/service mix with no net decrease in overall employment. However in a macroeconomics view when WHOLE industries (vertically and horizontally) experience a slow-down there is no where for productive resources to go---sort of in a holding pattern. and remain idle He does not come right out and say it, but his premise, I believe, is that the macoeconomy does not "self-correct" and that when the "free-market" (interaction between buyers and sellers) breaks down, then the only other game in town is for government to step in to "prime the pump" with spending, and perhaps an industrial policy (i.e. alternative energy), to get things moving again.

Sleeping Late? What is the opportunity cost of that decision?


Nice example of opportunity costs---Yes, you can learn economics through comics too!! :) (HT: MV=PQ: A Resource for Economic Educators

How do you say "supply-side economics" in Russian? Don't have to--A 0% Capital Gains Tax Rate is a Universal Language


Russia is ELIMINATING taxes on "capital gains". Most simply, this means they will not tax the gains/profits from investments made in Russia. The article does not say how narrowly they define a capital gain in this case. Traditionally, a capital gain is the profit made on a non-inventory investment such as stocks, bonds, etc. For example if I buy a stock and it appreciates in value from $100 to $150 then my capital gain when I sell is $50 per share which is taxed at the prevailing capital gain tax rate. I am assuming the Russians are talking about the gains from physical capital such as land, equipment, buildings, factories, etc. Lowering the capital gains tax will decrease the cost of producing for a business. This is a significant incentive for a business to move to Russia. However, capital gains tax is only one consideration when deciding to locate a business. Private property rights, local/national governance and a suitable workforce are some of the other variables.

From BBC: Russia to drop capital gains tax to attract investment
""Russia will scrap capital gains tax on long-term direct investment from 2011, President Dmitry Medvedev has said.
Mr Medvedev said that in terms of improving Russia's investment climate "we, I hope, are moving forward".
He also said the number of "strategic" firms, in which foreign investment is restricted and which cannot be privatised, would fall from 280 to 41. Mr Medvedev has been promoting the idea of "modernisation", including diversifying the Russian economy. Also, many investors have been wary of coming to Russia because of corruption and the dominant role the state plays in Russia's business life. Mr Medvedev told the St Petersburg International Economic Forum that long-term direct investment was "necessary for modernisation". He also said that he would ask the government to create a special investment public-private fund. "Such an idea should be implemented within a year," he said.

The Russian economy, heavily dependent on oil and gas revenues, was enjoying several years of robust growth in the middle of the 2000s. However, it was hit hard by the global economic crisis, and in 2009 the economy shrank by 7.9%. The economy is forecast to return to growth this year, expanding by about 4%. But Russia is also set to run a budget deficit for several years to come. Its oil revenues fund, which has been financing the deficit, is expected to end next year, and the government wants to attract more foreign investment to boost the economy. In an interview with Bloomberg Television earlier this week, Russia's First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov said: "While Russian stocks may be undervalued, Russia is not seeking investors interested in quick and easy money." "I would welcome real investors who can build factories, something new in this country."

Who spends a dollar more effectively--the Fed Govt or You?...Guess again!

NewsFlash: We are/have been in a recession! In this particular recession it is generally accepted by economists (relatively objective ones) that it is because of sagging Aggregate Demand. This means our total demand for US made goods and services is LESS than our ability to supply US made goods and services (aka Aggregate Supply). We don't necessarily have an excess supply of goods/services, but we have an excess supply of CAPACITY to produce goods/services---a gap between our actual production and our potential to produce good/services. Because people are not buying "stuff" then businesses are not selling stuff and certainly not re-ordering stuff. This in turn effects employment as employers shed employees as demand for their goods declines. As more people become unemployed they buy less so businesses lay workers off or close entirely, so on and so forth. It becomes an economic death spiral downward.
This means we need to get money into the hands of people/businesses so they can spend it to INCREASE or at least STABILIZE Aggregate Demand so businesses will sell/re-order more goods, and more people can keep there jobs, and hopefully more will be re-called as business picks up--Phew! That was hard work! How best to achieve this?
In general, we all think in terms of "bang for the buck" (hey, we are Americans, after all). What transmission mechanism that originates from the Federal Govt is going most effective---Govt spends a dollar OR Individuals spend a dollar from a tax cut? Oh, boy, here we go!
Below is a chart that represents research into how much ONE DOLLAR spent (by govt or individuals) INCREASES GDP, which is the goal of congress/the President. This is called "The Multiplier Effect", or more specifically, "The Keynesian Multiplier Effect".

Mark Zandi via Ezra Klein
Notice that one dollar spent can either yield a change in GDP of more than one dollar or less than one dollar. How can this happen?
To simplify, lets assume we ALL behave the exact same way. If I get a dollar in the form of a tax cut, research shows that I will save some portion of that dollar and spend the rest. So if we all save 10% ($.10) of our dollar then we will spend the other 90% ($.90), thereby increasing GDP by $.90. Economists would say we are acting "rationally" by saving some of our bounty. However, government does not save ANY of that dollar because, well, why would they? So, on the face of it, which entity, the individual OR the government, is going to have the BIGGEST impact on the purchase of GDP in that FIRST round of spending? Why the government, of course (I just proved it to you mathematically!!). Govt is going to buy $1.00 worth of "stuff" and I am going to buy only $.90.
However, as you look at the graph you will notice as you start from the top and move down you will see a transition from Tax Cuts/Rebates to more direct spending by the government then back to spending by individuals. Does this not go against what I just said about government spending being king? Sort of...
There IS going to be "leakage" from that federal dollar spent and not all of it will be spent directly on goods/services. Some of that dollar will be subjected to what I call "WTF"---no it is not what you are thinking, but it could be, I suppose. For me, WTF is "Waste, Theft, Fraud". Ultimately we want to look at who, an individual, business, or government entity is going to spend MORE of that initial dollar when it is received, hence affecting Aggregate Demand in the most impactful way.
Looking at the graph, we see the group with the highest tendency to spend an additional dollar they receive is the unemployed and others receiving direct government transfers. This makes sense, doesn't it? These are people living at the margin, as economist put it. Or more simply, people who have little immediate need to save but the most incentive to spend right away. They spend on necessities, one would suppose. Necessities, like food, rent, utilities and other basic staples, that are made in the US (mostly). This allows businesses to stay open to sell stuff and re-order more stuff AND keep/hire employees. Now Aggregate Demand is STABILIZED! Perhaps it inches forward to close the recessionary gap?
This is important to understand because there is A LOT of politics that takes place between the gaps of all the groups in the above graph. Who should get a tax cut, if anyone? Who should spend money in a recession:? The Federal Govt directly, or people who are most likely to spend it to get the economy stabilized? What do YOU think????

NEVER have to think again about buying "the lastest and greatest"---this Chart does it for you!!

Have you ever wondered how long does it take overseas to make the equivalent of US minimum wage?

Click the image to enlarge
The shocking disparities of labor cost
Source: Fixr

Wednesday, 16 June 2010

Wages in China too high ($1.84/hr)---Gotta move to Vietnam to produce ($.49/hr)---Crazy or Crazy like a Fox?


A race to the bottom OR is the bottom being eliminated? Wages paid to Chinese apparel workers have increased and manufacturers/outsourcers are looking for ways to (1) get around the increase in wages by decreasing other variable costs that go into production or (2) move production to a lower wage country, notably Vietnam. I have mentioned in class for the last two years that Vietnam is investing in infrastructure, education and creating a more business friendly environment. We have to stop thinking of these places as being backwater "villages". They are quickly modernizing, however the wages are painfully low, by OUR standards (see graph below). While there will be no major migration of manufacturing to Vietnam, there is enough movement to get the attention of the Chinese and various apparel retailers. The Vietnamese are "exploiting" their comparative advantage---willingness to do quality work at lower wages than Chinese workers. When we look at the relative pay, $1.84 in China and $.49 in Vietnam, it seems pitiful, until you look at what is the alternative for Vietnamese workers? Does this type of job offer them a foot in the door to a higher standard of living, like the Chinese did 20 years ago? Do they have a right to use this comparative advantage, even if it seems "exploitative", to climb the economic ladder? Or is this way of economic improvement not right and too exploitative and should be discouraged? What do you think?

""Rising labor costs in China are forcing U.S. apparel and accessories retailers, such as AnnTaylor Stores Corp. and Coach Inc., to consider relocating at least some of their production to countries with cheaper work forces. But doing so could risk increasing other expenses, such as shipping.
"We are looking to move production into lower-cost geographies, most notably Vietnam and India," Mike Devine, Coach's chief financial officer, said at a conference last week. The luxury-handbag retailer already produces goods in those countries, but plans to increase its presence in both of them.""

There is money in Dog Poop...No, REALLY, there is money IN dog poop!!

From NYTIMES: Pet Waste Removal Worker Finds $58 in Dog Poop
This is why your mother says to wash your hands after handling money: A St. Louis worker found $58 -- packed in dog poop. Steve Wilson works for DoodyCalls Pet Waste Removal. On a recent call, he noticed money sticking out from doggie doo. Wilson wasn't sure what to do, but eventually pulled out the bills, sanitized them, placed them in a plastic zip-locked bag and returned them to the customer. It turned out to be $58. The company said the money was torn, but the serial numbers were identifiable, which means the bills could be returned to a bank and replaced with new money. The Association of Professional Animal Waste Specialists says Wilson is the first person in his profession to find and report money in dog poop.

AMAZING interactive Graphic showing migration patterns in US in 2008--Where people are moving to AND away from...

You will find a GREAT interactive map HERE of migration patterns in the US JUST in 2008...Select a city and watch! If you click on the map itself you can select specific counties--it is that detailed. Black lines mean moving into and red means moving out...Amazing differences!! Have fun! (HT: Carpe Diem)

"Oil Spill May End Up Lifting GDP Slightly"---There is no profit in destruction--Frederic Basitat




destroyed," and at this aphorism, which will make the hair of the protectionists stand on end: "To break, to destroy, to dissipate is not to encourage national employment," or more briefly: "Destruction is not profitable."


A significant negative in the way we count Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is we don't SUBTRACT damage (natural or man-induced) to existing goods and services already provided (i.e.infrastructure). Example: A house in hurricane Katrina is destroyed. The value of the house is not subtracted from GDP, ONLY the value of the goods/services purchased to re-build that house is counted. GDP is forward looking and does not take into consideration the value lost to society to "enjoy", as Bastiat puts it. An alternative measure of GDP is available called "Gross National Happiness"--Click HERE to find out more about it...

Read more about this GREAT Frenchman..

Trade allows us to get more goods at lower prices...does this make us better or worse off?


In my AS Macroeconomics class, when we look at the numbers in the Consumer Price Index, I ask students to see more than just numbers and statistics. Reports like these (the CPI) can tell a story and reflect what is going on "out there in the real world". One connection I ask student to make is to look at how the price(s) of certain categories of goods have changed over time and WHERE they are produced. Are the goods subjected to competition domestically AND internationally? Does this make a difference in terms of the price of those items? The following graphs from HERE illustrate the price changes over time. The first one shows categories of goods that have INCREASED in price and the second categories of goods that have DECREASED in price...



The simple definition of inflation is "too much money chasing too few goods". When you have world-wide competition, the production of goods is more diffused and plentiful, making the above definition harder to come to fruition and tends to put a damper on inflation. However, when domestically you dont have the ability to greatly increase the production of a good relative to the money flowing to it then the definition becomes more appropos (education and healthcare supply are relatively INELASTIC). One more observation---of the 2 categories of goods that have risen faster than anything else in the CPI, what do they have in common? (HT: CoyoteBlog)

Sunday, 13 June 2010

Do as I say, not as I do...BP gas station sign--gotta love irony...

I am assuming this is real and not photoshopped...Notice the BP logo for the gas station in the upper left portion of the photo...HT: The Big Questions

"Down with the Man!! oh, wait, I am the Man"---Billionaires take to the street to protest a tax increase...


Australian billionaires, yes, billionaires, took the the streets to protest a proposed new tax on the "super-rich"--ahhhh, no further comment...

Australian billionaires take to the streets for tax protest
""It was, by any measure, a most unusual rally. Many of the placard-waving protesters gathered in a Perth park wore suits and ties, and impassioned speeches were delivered from the back of a flat-bed truck by two billionaires, including Australia's richest woman.
Gina Rinehart's pearls glistened in the sunlight as she bellowed through a megaphone: "Axe the tax!" Ms Rinehart has a personal fortune of $4.8bn (£2.7bn). Andrew Forrest, in monogrammed worker's overalls, told the well-mannered crowd that Australia was "turning Communist". Mr Forrest is the country's fourth richest person, worth an estimated $4.2bn. Both Mr Forrest and Ms Rinehart have amassed their wealth from digging up iron ore in the remote Pilbara region. Like other mining magnates, they have grown fabulously rich during a resources boom based largely on China's insatiable demand for the coal, iron, nickel and other minerals that lie in abundance beneath Australia's rust-red soil. Now Kevin Rudd's Labour government is planning to levy an extra tax on the mining industry, and the industry is furious. The issue has dominated the political agenda for weeks, and is even threatening to torpedo Mr Rudd's chance of being returned to power at an election due to be held before the end of this year....""

Iraqi Authorities to Kill 1 Million Dogs! Iraqi Vets, are there REALLY this many stray dogs in Baghdad???

Are there REALLY over million stray dogs in Baghdad, a city of 7 million people? Iraqi Vets, can you confirm this? Thanks

Baghdad to cull a million stray dogs as rogue canine population soars
More than a million stray dogs roaming Baghdad are facing destruction. The initiative has so far led to 42,000 strays being killed in only two months. Teams of riflemen and vets are trying to thin out a rogue canine population that has reached at least 1,250,000...‘We could consider this the biggest campaign of dog execution ever,’ said Baghdad chief veterinarian, Mohammed al-Hilly. Mr al-Hilly claimed the huge amounts of litter that began heaping up in the capital as violence paralysed public services had helped to trigger the problem. The cull involves 20 specialist teams each consisting of two shooters and two vets, often backed up by police patrols. The dogs are either shot or poisoned and their bodies are then taken to refuse dumps.
HT: Drudge Report

US rice causes people in Haiti to starve---Is that an overstatement?


Predictable...Pay generous subsidies to US Rice growers which encourages over-production.--US buys the surplus (producer gets paid twice)---bag up the rice and send it as food aid to various parts of the world, EVEN if that country has rice producing capabilities---depress the local price of rice---local rice producers go out of business---now they need to get free rice to feed their families...(Repeat with Corn, Wheat, etc)...Rich countries don't REALLY want developing countries to be self-sufficient, do they? Why not BUY local as much as possible? Is it really that difficult to ask that question FIRST before making a big aid decision? I understand the initial response, but consideration has to be taken in making sure local markets are not adversely affected by the good intentions (MARKETS MATTER!!). It just makes rebuilding that much more difficult. The US government is not the only culprit. Other donor countries that "subsidize and buy" are just as guilty. Many NGO's do the same thing.

Tons of subsidized U.S. rice hurt Haitian farms
POND-SONDE, Haiti – Haiti’s rice farmers are dismayed. It’s nearly harvest time in this fertile valley where the bulk of Haiti’s food is grown, and they’re competing once again with cheap U.S. imported rice.
Just down the road, vendors are undercutting them, selling the far less expensive grain. Subsidized U.S. rice has flooded Haiti for decades. Now, after the Jan. 12 quake, 15,000 metric tons of donated U.S. rice have arrived. “I can’t make any money off my rice with all the foreign rice there is now,” said Renan Reynold, a 37-year-old farmer who makes an average of about $600 a year. “If I can’t make any money, I can’t feed my family.”Read rest of story.
HT: (MV=PQ: A Resource for Economic Educators)

BP Oil Spill makes my worst nightmare come true---MORE Ethanol on the way...


The list of tragedies from the oil spill seems endless, but we must add one more---ETHANOL...
The Ethanol Trap: The oil blowout will mean more subsidies for the corn-fuel industry. That's bad news for consumers.(Slate.com)
""The most disgusting aspect of the blowout in the Gulf of Mexico isn't the video images of oil-soaked birds or the incessant blather from pundits about what BP or the Obama administration should be doing to stem the flow of oil. Instead, it's the ugly spectacle of the corn-ethanol scammers doing all they can to capitalize on the disaster so that they can justify an expansion of the longest-running robbery of taxpayers in U.S. history...Listen to Matt Hartwig, communications director for the Renewable Fuels Association, an ethanol industry lobby group: "The Gulf of Mexico disaster serves as a stark and unfortunate reminder of the need for domestically-produced renewable biofuels." Or look at an advertisement that was recently placed in a Washington, D.C., Metro station: "No beaches have been closed due to ETHANOL spills. … America's CLEAN fuel." That gem was paid for by Growth Energy, another ethanol industry lobby group. The blowout of BP's Macondo well has given the corn-ethanol industry yet another opportunity to push its fuel adulterant on the American consumer. And unfortunately, the Obama administration appears ready and willing to foist yet more of the corrosive, environmentally destructive, low-heat-energy fuel on motorists.""
My main concern is the havoc that an expanded ethanol mandate will have on the food chain and other food crops that will be displaced because of increased use of subsidies for '"Food For Fuel". The Earth Policy Institute says:
""The 107 million tons of grain that went to U.S. ethanol distilleries in 2009 was enough to feed 330 million people for one year at average world consumption levels. More than a quarter of the total U.S. grain crop was turned into ethanol to fuel cars last year. With 200 ethanol distilleries in the country set up to transform food into fuel, the amount of grain processed has tripled since 2004.""
HT: Carpe Diem

Alred Hitchcock Sound Test---Early Version of "That's What She Said"....

Is your favorite World Cup team from an economically repressive country? Find out within...




Too interesting to not post, at least for an economics teacher---here are the teams participating in the World Cup AND their Economic Freedom ranking as compiled by The Economic Freedom of the World Project. The counties ranking in the index for ALL countries in the world are in parenthesis and they are numbered in order of economic freedom relative to the teams participating in the World Cup (the USA is number 6 in the world rankings but 4th relative to the teams in the World Cup). Are you rooting for a team that does not have a system for individuals to economically express themselves? Does it matter? Just a thought...
HT: Divsion of Labour---Looking for a way to decide who you're rooting for in the World Cup? Or do you need a tie-breaker for games in which your home country isn't involved? Here are World Cup participants ranked by their scores in the Economic Freedom of the World Index. Index rankings in parentheses.


1. New Zealand (#3 in index, Hong Kong & Singapore are 1 & 2)
2. Switzerland (4)
3. Chile (5)
4. USA (6)
5. Australia (t-9)
6. UK (t-9)
7. Denmark (12)
8. Netherlands (t-20)
9. Slovakia (26)
t-10. Japan (t-28)
t-10. Honduras (t-28)
12. Germany (29)
13. South Korea (32)
14. France (33)
15. Spain (39)
16. Portugal (45)
17. Greece (52)
18. South Africa (t-57)
t-19. Italy (t-61)
t-19. Uruguay (t-61)
21. Slovenia (t-64)
22. Mexico (68)
23. Ghana (71)
24. Serbia (84)
25. Paraguay (91)
26. Nigeria (97)
27. Argentina (t-105)
28. Cote d'Ivoire (108)
29. Brazil (111)
30. Cameroon (123)
31. Algeria (131)
32. North Korea (Not Ranked)

Thursday, 10 June 2010

A couple of graphics showing resource allocation/access in Africa and Foreign Aid as a percentage of Govt spending...

Two informative graphics. One showing distribution of natural resources in Africa and some of the latest "deals" with various countries (mainly China) to gain access to those resources...Source: Financial Times


This one shows Foreign Aid as a percentage of total government spending in these same countries...

Graphic with estimated revenues and costs of the World Cup...

Graphic on the economics of the World Cup---estimated revenues and costs...Source HERE

Someone's trash is someone else's treasure---IA significant sign economic recovery is underway...


June 9 (Bloomberg) -- If garbage is any indication, the U.S. economy is strengthening.
""The number of freight cars carrying waste jumped 45 percent in April and May from the same period last year to 79,044, according to the Washington-based Association of American Railroads. Waste freight hasn’t grown as fast for any quarter since at least 1994.
Shipments of waste and scrap have a higher correlation with economic growth than coal or copper, according to data compiled by Bloomberg News. (To see an Interactive Insight version of the story, click here.)
“It’s sort of like measuring horsepower by looking at the smoke coming out of the tail pipe,” Carl Riccadonna, a senior economist at Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. in New York, said in a telephone interview. “It’s consistent with our broader view that economic growth is accelerating.”
The world’s largest economy grew at a 3.3 percent annual pace in the second quarter, according to the median forecast of 64 economists surveyed by Bloomberg News from June 2 to June 8. Gross domestic product expanded at a 3 percent pace in the first three months of the year.
Shipments of scrap and waste are “coming back slowly but surely” as the economy recovers, said Lauren Rueger, a spokesman at Jacksonville, Florida-based CSX Corp., the third- largest U.S. railroad by 2009 sales.
Statistical Correlation
The correlation coefficient between carloads of waste and year-over-year growth in gross domestic product from the first quarter of 2001 through the same period of 2010 is 0.82, according to Bloomberg calculations. A correlation of 1 would show the pair moving in lockstep, and a minus 1 reading reflects opposite changes. That is the strongest correlation among 21 categories sent by rail and tracked by the AAR.
Shipments of metals, with a 0.79 correlation coefficient, are the next highest. The coefficient for coal is among the lowest at 0.32. The AAR says iron and steel make up 42 percent of waste and scrap, followed by municipal waste and demolition products at 32 percent; paper, 11 percent; ashes, 5 percent, non-ferrous metals, 4 percent; and chemical waste, 1 percent. Miscellaneous waste accounts for the remaining 4 percent.""

CCTV of houses collapsing as Haiti quake hits

From BBC: A Haitian government video shows the moment the 7.0 magnitude earthquake struck in January, and shows parts of the palace crumbling under the impact. The video was released by the Haitian government at a recent conference on the future of Haiti in the Dominican Republic.
The massive quake killed more than 300,000 people and left many more homeless...CLICK HERE to see video...

NewsFlash: AT&T changes its pricing policy on internet usage---complements and substitutes go crazy!!



Two recent articles on AT&T's decision to stop their unlimited usage plan on data downloading illustrate the economic concepts of COMPLEMENTS and SUBSTITUTES. Complements are two different goods/services that can stand alone BUT are often (sometimes required) used together and a change in the price of one can affect the demand for the other good/service. For example, if the price of "Good A" increases then the demand for "GOOD B" decreases ("Good B" becomes less desirable). There is an inverse relationship between the change in price of one good and the demand for the complement. This is the situation in regards to AT&T. AT&T's plans are going to increase the price of internet access depending on your usage. The first article discusses how Application writers fear a decrease in demand for their "Apps" because customers may, rightly or wrongly, assume that the app will cost them more.

""Some software developers fear they will, and if that happens, the caps on data use that AT&T has imposed could also make consumers lose their appetite for the latest innovations. Some developers worry that customers will be reluctant to download and use the most bandwidth-intensive apps and that developers will cut back on innovative new features that would push customers over the new limits."" NYTIMES

The second article discusses how cable-operators see this as an opportunity. In this case, wireless downloads and hard-wired cable companies, like Time Warner, Charter, etc. are SUBSTITUTES. When the price of "GOOD A" increases and the demand for "GOOD B" increases, this signals that these to goods/services are SUBSTITUTES. There is a positive relationship between the price of one good and the demand to for another.

""AT&T Inc.'s decision to shift its wireless-data pricing to a usage-based model may have upset lovers of mobile media, but it's music to the ears of cable executives. The move away from unlimited Internet-data plans by the second-largest U.S. wireless carrier after Verizon Wireless could push more customers to watch videos and stream music through their wireline-broadband connection at home—an area dominated by cable operators—rather than through wireless cellular networks."" WSJ

The end result of AT&T's decision potentially has adverse affects application writers and potentially benefits cable companies. This type of economic analysis is important to recognize. It helps forecast behavior by businesses and customers....

The next economic "Bubble" to pop??---YOUR COLLEGE TUITION!!!!



Too much money chasing too few goods/services? That is the classic definition of "inflation". Is too much money chasing too few ACTUAL completed degrees? When one good or service increases in price (or 10, or 20) it does not necessarily mean there is inflation. Inflation is a "general rise in prices" of all (most?) goods and services. (The graph to the left shows the how college tuition has increased relative to all other items measured in the Consumer Price Index.) However, we are familiar with the term " bubble". Can tuition prices rise ad infinitum? The housing bubble of the last couple of years was predicated on this notion (as was the high tech bubble of late 90's). Are we being drawn into ANOTHER bubble? Read the following and see if there are any parallels with any past crisis. (HT: Carpe Diem)

Here are 8 reasons to believe we’re in the middle of a college tuition bubble (that’s about to burst).

1) Tuition is, and has been, increasing at double the rate of inflation
On average, college tuition increases at around 8 percent per year, which means the cost of college doubles every nine years. Because colleges know that students will simply borrow more money to cover tuition increases, colleges have been relying on steady tuition hikes to solve all of their money problems. If this continues a college degree will soon cost as much as a house.

2) Students are borrowing more than ever to pay for college
The number of college students graduating with over $25,000 in student loan debt has tripled in the past decade alone. Today, 66% of students borrow to pay for college, taking on an average of $23,165 in debt. Twelve years ago, 58% borrowed to pay for college, taking on only $13,172 in debt.

3) For profit colleges are paying homeless people to take out federal loans to enroll
Because student loans are so easy to acquire, enterprising colleges are paying homeless people to enroll. The math makes sense when you think about it: if paying someone a $2,000 “stipend” gets the college $20,000/year in tuition courtesy of the federal government, that’s money well spent. Unfortunately, many people who accept such “stipend” offers never graduate, become overwhelmed with student debt, and destroy their already bad financial records.

4) Colleges are on a non-teaching staff hiring spree that far outpaces enrollment
Why hire a full-time professor when you can hire an “environmental sustainability officer”? According to the a New York Times article, over the past two decades colleges have doubled their non-teaching staff, while enrollment has only increased by 40%. Often times staff members have exotic duties like monitoring environmental sustainability, or their focus is on student “lifestyle.” Economist Daniel Bennett, who conducted this study, says “Universities and colleges are catering more to students, trying to make college a lifestyle, not just people getting an education. There’s more social programs, more athletics, more trainers, more sustainable environmental programs.” Of course, much this exotic hiring and lifestyle catering is made possible by student loan money.

5) For profit reliance on federal loans has reached an all time high
According to Bloomberg, publicly traded higher education companies derive three-fourths of their revenue from federal funds, up from just 48 percent in 2001 and approaching the 90 percent limit set by federal law. The fact that colleges are almost completely relying on borrowed money to finance tuition, up to the legal limit, means we’ve almost hit the breaking point. If not for the easy student loan money sloshing around, many colleges would go belly up tomorrow.

6) Schools are spending on luxurious amenities to lure in more students
Flush with student loan money and wanting to attract even more, colleges are increasingly spending on luxury dorms, gyms, swimming pools and other amenities.
Freakonomics author Stephen Dubner noted that when he went back to his college, a chancellor told him that “[the gym] was a top priority because parents and prospective students increasingly think of themselves as customers, shopping for the most amenities for the best price, and the colleges that didn’t come to grips with this would soon see their customers going elsewhere.” But gyms are just the tip of the ice burg. At High Point University in North Carolina, students are treated to valet parking, live music in the cafeteria and Starbucks gift cards on their birthdays.

7) College president salaries are sky high, even in a historical economic downturn
USA Today reported that 23 Private College Presidents Made More Than $1 Million in 2008, while 110 made more than $500,000. In case you were wondering, this is not the norm — as recently as 2002, there were no million-dollar presidents. And it’s no wonder the college administrator gravy train continues despite the down economy. After all, when your “customers” have easy access to credit and pay you with money they don’t have, the economy doesn’t really matter, does it?

8) The student loan problem cuts across all schools, for profit and nonprofit.
Often times the discussion about a high tuition leads to a flogging of for profit colleges. And while for profit colleges are often the worst about shamelessly fattening themselves at the trough of student loans, it’s not a for profit vs. non profit issue. In fact, for profit colleges account for less than half of student loan defaults. Nor is the issue one of “good colleges” vs. “bad colleges.” As this New York Times article illustrates, even students at prestigious non-profit schools like NYU can find themselves in financially ruinous circumstances because of their student loans.

Whose fault is this?
The federal government for making student loans non dischargeable in bankruptcy and loosening lending standards? State governments for refusing to directly fund higher education? Schools for taking advantage of students and relying too much on tuition increases? Lenders for handing out student loans like candy? Students for borrowing money like there’s no tomorrow?

One thing is for sure, things cannot continue as they are, regardless of how we got to this point. The housing bubble gave America a hard lesson in what happens when loose credit leads to unsustainable prices. But unlike the housing bubble, in which foreclosure and bankruptcy allowed people to have a fresh start, the college tuition bubble will haunt young people for life unless bankruptcy laws change.

Source: HERE

Monday, 7 June 2010

Need a job? Want to clean up oil in 100+ degree heat for 10 hours a day? Apply with-in...



How much per hour would it take for YOU to do this type of work???
Put Jobless Young People to Work Cleaning Up BP’s Mess and Order BP to Pay
Former Labor Secretary suggests that BP should pay for a legion of "young people" to go to the Gulf Coast to clean-up the marshes and beaches.

""For most new high school and college grads finding a job is harder than ever. Meanwhile, states are cutting summer jobs for disadvantaged young people. What to do with this army of young unemployed? Send them to the Gulf to clean up beaches and wetlands, and send the bill to BP.""

I have NO problem with this! However, I am intrigued by the reality of this proposal: Suggest to high school and college graduates to move to the Gulf Coast, work 8 hours a day in 100+ heat, cleaning/scrubbing raw crude oil from beaches, marshes, rocks, etc...I am not suggesting in any way that this demographic lacks the work ethic or can-do to do this, but seems to me that this (even MY) generation is no-depression era generation when it comes to doing work like this:

""The President should order BP to establish a $5 billion clean-up fund, and immediately put America’s army of unemployed young people to work saving the Gulf coast. Call it the new Civilian Conservation Corps.

(The old CCC — created by FDR at another time of massive unemployment and environmental stress — gave millions of young Americans jobs and training to reforest lands that had been degraded, provide emergency flood relief in the Ohio and Mississippi valleys, and build the infrastructure for our national parks.)""

Am I wrong? Judging this generation too harshly? Convince me otherwise... :)

Shrek Glasses Recalled---I wish they recalled the movie instead...



WSJ: McDonald's Recalls 'Shrek' Glasses

""Cadmium was detected in McDonald's 'Shrek'-themed glasses featuring characters, from left, Puss In Boots, Shrek, Donkey and Fiona..McDonald's Corp. is recalling 12 million glasses sold as a promotional tie-in to the latest "Shrek" movie because they contain the toxic metal cadmium. The voluntary recall is a rare lapse for McDonald's, which is known for tough oversight of suppliers, and could hurt its standing with families that have driven the fast-food chain's growth. The company's shares slipped $1.15 to $66.70 in 4 p.m. New York Stock Exchange composite trading Friday, with the broader markets also lower. Friday, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission said the designs on the glasses, which were sold for about $2 since the beginning of May, contain cadmium, which can pose health risks with long-term exposure.
The glasses were manufactured by ARC International North America Inc., of Millville, N.J. The company said it only learned about the problem late Thursday and will look into it, the Associated Press reported Friday. ARC International is based in France.
No injuries have been reported, but McDonald's has asked consumers to stop using the glasses and return them for a full refund.
McDonald's says the glasses met federal standards when tested by an independent third-party laboratory but decided to recall the items "in light of the CPSC's evolving assessment of standards for cadmium in consumer products."
The recall, reported earlier by the Los Angeles Times, may do some damage to McDonald's image in the eyes of families, Telsey Advisory Group analyst Tom Forte said Friday in an interview. "The risk would be that there would be the perception that McDonald's selling unsafe items," he said.
The glasses don't pose an "acute risk" to children, said Scott Wolfson, a spokesman for the CSPC, as the amount of cadmium in them is slightly above a standard the commission is developing. He said the amount of the metal found is "far below" the level foundin three previous recalls of children's metal jewelry.
With concern over the metal growing, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. recently began limiting the use of cadmium in a variety of children's products after voluntarily recalling some pieces of children's jewelry that were found to have high levels of the metalcadmium. ""