Category: Paul Krugman

The Green Divide

1 Comment

March 24, 2019

by Steve Stofka

Half of the country’s voters live on 80% of the land, which the political analysts color red. Half of voters live on the remaining 20% of land, which is colored blue. The needs, values and outlooks of those in the red are not the same as those in the blue. As the country’s population continues to migrate from rural to metropolitan areas, the country becomes ever more divided. As economist Paul Krugman wrote this week, no one knows how to fix the continuing economic decline in rural areas (Note #1).

A person’s views on an issue may depend on the state they live in. In the past several decades, immigration has had much more impact on California and the southern states. In 1980, 15% of California’s population was foreign born, almost four times the national average of 4.3%. In 2015, that share had doubled for both California and the nation as a whole. However, the national average is only a third of California’s numbers (Note #2). How does the nation adopt a single policy toward immigration when there are such differences in circumstances?

Regardless of our different experiences and outlooks, we are dependent on each other. 20% of Americans are on the Social Security and Medicare programs (Note #3). 24% are on CHIP and Medicaid (Note #4). 40% of the two million farms in America receive subsidies (Note #5). The transfers of money between Americans has reached 14% of GDP.

TransfersPctGDP

In 1962, Ronald Reagan took a stridently conservative tone when he warned that the Medicare program being developed in the Democratic Congress would lead to socialism and the destruction of American democracy (Note #6). Having married into wealth, he could afford a dramatic interpretation of social policy. Few Americans hold such extreme views today (Note #7).

The reasonable arguments of today might look oppressive to future generations, and progressive ideas seem natural to our descendants. Our ancestors had different views toward slavery, racism, voting rights and social programs than we have today. What has not changed is our distrust of those we regard as “other,” and our desire to make our principles universal for our fellow Americans. We want everyone to play by our rules, or our interpretation of the rules.

In the debates on the ratification of the US Constitution, some asked what the terms “provide for the …general welfare” meant (Note #8). Was the new government to become a national charity? The Federalists argued for the inclusion of the term to give the government a degree of latitude in changing circumstances. The anti-Federalists argued that this new government would eventually become the home of beggars and lobbyists wanting to promote their own welfare as the “general welfare.” In the past century, the phrase has become a constitutional bedrock of Supreme Court precedent underlying social programs. A person could argue that the size of social welfare spending and the extraordinary power of lobbyists in Washington has proven the anti-Federalist’s case.

America is the land of debate because the Constitution was structured to promote debate. While Americans had a platform to argue with each other, it was hoped that there would be less bloodshed, rebellion, and dictatorship (Note #9). Some days we might be less sure of that premise. As the circumstances of urban and rural America diverge further, we will struggle ever more to reach consensus. Each side will feel the need to impose its will on the other.  As we debate these issues, we should be just as careful of our own instincts as we are about the instincts of those on the other side of the debate.

////////////////////////

Notes:

1. Krugman op-ed on lack of solutions for the economic decline in rural America
2. Four decades of immigration numbers – pdf page 6
3. 62 million Americans on Social Security and Medicare – numbers here
4. 74 million Americans on CHIP and Medicaid – numbers here
5. 39% of 2.1 million farms receive agricultural subsidies
6. Reagan warns against Medicare
7. During the debate before the passage of Obamacare, some Tea Party members advocated a return to the days when we just let old people die.
8. U.S. Constitution, Section 8.1 “provide for the common Defence [sic] and general Welfare of the United States” http://constitutionus.com/
9. Former colonies of Great Britain have struggled with free speech issues. South Africans has only had freedom of expression for twenty years . Canada still does not have complete freedom of speech

 

All Aboard!

Leave a comment

July 17, 2016

I have changed the blogger template to make it easier to read on a mobile phone. On my Android phone, the dynamic template defaulted to classic view without all the widgets on the side and was easier to read. The graphs are easier to see in landscape mode, when the long part of the phone is horizontal to the ground. Perhaps some readers can give me some feedback if there are problems viewing on an Apple phone.  Now on to this week’s business!

As I noted last week, things can get a bit ugly when both stocks and Treasuries surge upward at the same time, as they have in the past few weeks following the sharp downward response to the Brexit vote in the U.K.  The buying of stocks signals that investors have more of an appetite for risk.  The buying of Treasuries and gold signal a desire for safety.  At the beginning of the week the world woke up to the news that the Japanese central bank was going to provide a lot of stimulus to goose economic growth.  This gave a boost to Asian stocks and the rally in equities was on.  By the end of the week, the Japanese stock market had risen 8% during the week and it’s currency, the yen, had fallen the most since 1999.

Economist Paul Krugman has called on Japanese policy makers to set higher inflation targets and provide even more stimulus to spur an economy now lethargic for two decades.  According to Krugman’s own textbook, the roles of an economist are 1) to describe the economic and market mechanisms; and 2) form predictions of how the economy and market would react if certain policy actions were adopted.

However, Krugman has a lot of visibility as an op-ed writer in the NY Times.  In this role, he often offers prescriptive solutions, and this week’s call is yet another prescription from Dr. Krugman.  Japan has been basing their policies on Krugman’s predictions for a decade with mixed or muted results. More stimulus seems to be the eternal cry from Krugman, a smart man who seems to have but one or two solutions for the majority of social and economic problems.

Most economists are rather circumspect, arguing among themselves the mechanisms and validation of varied predictions.  But there are a few stand outs who reach out to the general public, ready and willing to engage in the political debate.  The subfield of economics called macroeconomics forms a beautiful mud pit for the struggle of political policies, for politicians often cite macroeconomic rationale when championing a set of policies.  For thirty years, Nobel winner Milton Friedman espoused a more conservative and monetary model of the economy, emphasizing montetary, not fiscal, policy by the central bank as the chief intervention in the market economy.  Search YouTube and you will find many of his talks and lectures and they are both informative and entertaining.

Krugman is one of the more vocal macroeconomists who diagnose economic maladies, build a predictive model based on policy or monetary fixes, then diagnose their model when their predictions are in error.  The patient didn’t take enough of the medicine or there is some response lag or the full extent of the problem was not known or was disguised by something or other.  The descriptive aspect of macroeconomics doesn’t seem to help develop a predictive model.  Perhaps the study of economic phenomenon on a national and international scale is just too difficult to have much predictive ability. Let’s hope not.  For the past decade, so many really smart people have been wrong.

Once again this week, central bankers signalled that they were ready to adopt what are called accommodative policies to reassure markets.  If stock markets were an athlete with a knee injury, central bankers would be the good doctor who drains the knee then injects a bit of pain medication and cortisone into the joint before sending the athlete back onto the field.

////////////////////

Retail Sales

Wildlife scientists may study herds of grazing animals to gain insight into both the seasonal behaviors of the herd and its response to conditions that alter the animals’ environment.  These include drought, war, or the burning of forests for farmland.  Economists follow a different kind of herd – people.

Macroeconomists focus on the behavior of the entire herd; microeconomists analyze the behavior of individuals acting within the herd.   Two telltale signs of human behavior are paycheck stubs and sales receipts, which act in tandem like entangled particles in a quantum dance.  In this consumerist economy, retail sales are fueled by the earnings of 140 million workers; the monthly reports on each activity guide the analysis of economists.

Each month a sample of paycheck stubs is gathered and reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  The Census Bureau produces an estimate of retail sales based on a survey of almost 5000 companies.  (For those interested in the methodology.) Year-over-year growth in real, or inflation adjusted, sales fell below 1% in March this year and spurred some concern that consumption power was being eroded by slow income growth. Following the extraordinary labor report a week ago, the monthly retail sales report, released this past Friday, was stronger than the consensus.  Inflation adjusted sales rose 1.67% over last year, rising up a 1/2% from May’s year-over-year reading.  2% real growth would be ideal but anything over 1.5% is a sign of a growing economy. Why the 1.52% threshold?  1% of each year’s growth can be discounted as simply population growth.
 
On a sobering note, the year-over-year growth in retail sales is gradually declining as we can see in the graph below.

What negative signs should an ordinary investor watch for?  Where is the herd going?  Investors should get cautious when year-over-year growth in real retail sales consistently falls below 1.5%.  After December 2006, growth remained below this threshold and did not cross back above it till March 2010 – a period of 3-1/4 years that darkened the lives and hopes of many Americans.  During that period January 2007 through March 2010, the SP500 index fell from about 1440 to 1170, a decline of 19%.  We are part of the herd but with some observant caution we may be able to move some of our savings to the fringes of the herd movement and avoid getting trampled.

///////////////////////

MyRA

Earlier this year the U.S. Treasury introduced a Roth IRA tool called myRA for employees who work at a company that does not offer a retirement savings account.  This is a fully guaranteed account similar to a savings account that grows tax free.  The maximum one can save in this kind of account is $15,000 and part of the contribution amount is entitled to a tax credit.  This can be a good way to get started with retirement savings.  The Federal Reserve has an article on the subject here.

///////////////////

Amtrak Train Trance

On vacation in California recently, I rode Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner several times on day trips from Los Angeles.  Unlike the east-west Amtrak routes, these north south routes along the coast are more frequent, running several times a day sometimes only two hours apart. Part of the route is along the beach, part along a highway, and part travels the urban backcountry – the backyards of businesses, farms and homes that most of us do not see from a car.  The experience was a sightseeing delight, a meditative trance of motion.

Most of Amtrak’s lines do not make money and rely on government subsidies.  Like so much of our transportation infrastructure in this country, railroad infrastructure needs upgrade and repair.  Opponents of government subsidies often don’t realize how much of what they personally use is subsidized.  Here is a link to a Business Insider article on Amtrak’s operations and the political debate over federal subsidies for Amtrak.  The debate crosses party lines because rural politicians of both parties tend to support subsidies for Amtrak when the rail service crosses through their geographic region.

Air travel, the most frequent mode of long distance transporation, is heavily subsidized by the federal government.  Here is a USA Today article on that subject and the $2 billion in subsidy for one airport alone, LaGuardia airport in New York City.  Likewise are the massive amount of indirect subsidies for automobile transporation, which rely on roads maintained by federal, state and local tax dollars.  These repairs are only partially paid for with dedicated gasoline tax dollars; state and local taxes must make up the difference.  Let us also include the multi-billion dollar bailouts of the industry that arise every few decades because of poor planning by industry executives in response to market demand or foreign competition.

Amtrak subsidies look miniscule in comparison. The railroad suffers from a chicken and egg problem of investment and revenue.  Which comes first?  Without more investment the railroad can only offer once a day service on east-west routes, which does not attract strong ridership.  Without a show of rider demand, there is little incentive to provide investment. The California Zephyr leaves a major city like Denver enroute to the west coast at 8 A.M. only once a day.

Boarding times in a particular region may be inconvenient.  Barstow, CA is a city of 23,000 north of Los Angeles that is serviced by the southern east-west Amtrak route called the Southwest Chief.  Like the Zephyr, this train starts in Chicago but heads southwest through Kansas, Colorado and New Mexico before heading west through northern Arizona to the west coast.  The Barstow railroad station, if it can be called that, consists of a bench and a slight overhang typical of urban bus stops.  There is no bathroom or other facilities.  The 4-1/2 hour trip to Union Station in Los Angeles arrives and departs once a day in Barstow at 3:40 AM, a unwelcoming time for a train jaunt into the big city.  The large city of San Bernadino, CA has a slightly more hospitable departure time of 5:30 AM.

In the early 19th century, before the refinement of petroleum deposits into gasoline, railroads were developed and built in Britain, then spread to Europe.  Early investment in rail transportation both for goods and people embedded the concept and the technology in European politics, its economies and cultures.

Many decades ago, this country chose to subsidize the movement of people by car, reserving the rails for the transportation of goods.  The land was big, and population centers west of the Mississippi were distant.  Steam locomotives run on wood,  a precious commodity west of the 100th meridian (central Nebraska), where there was not enough rainfall for trees to grow on the vast plains.  Oil deposits were plentiful in several regions within the country and gasoline is portable and a rich source of energy, packing a lot of BTUs per volume.

We love our cars, the hum of tires on blacktop as we run down the highway. But a train has another quality that is difficult to get in a car – a reduced sense of movement, a trance like floating through space while staring out the picture window of a rail car at a movie in motion.  If you have a few days and you are not in a rush, take a seat and let the landscape unroll before you.

Inequality

Leave a comment

April 17, 2016

In a 1996 article in Mother Jones magazine economist Paul Krugman (now a N.Y. Times editorial writer) explored the possible causes for growing income inequality.  Yes, twenty years ago income inequality was a “thing.”  A more recent study using hard granular data contradicts a widely held belief that income inequality has grown substantially in the past four decades.

I’ll look first at the older piece by Krugman.  I should note that Krugman was writing for a popular magazine, not an academic journal.  As with his weekly column for the N. Y. Times, Krugman’s goal is to sell his audience a story, to stir up the pot.  Critics who judge an editorial column with the same rigor as an academic paper should be forced to write “I will be kinder to my fellow human beings” one thousand times with a #2 Ticonderoga pencil till they get little pencil indentations in the pads of their fingertips.

Some, including a few contenders in the current Presidential campaign, sound the alarm.  “We’re shipping jobs overseas!”  Well, Krugman considered imports to be a possible cause for inequality but found that imports of goods from third world countries, where wages are markedly lower than the U.S., were only 2% of national income.  Stopping imports from those countries would have but a small effect on workers’ wages.

What about technology? Krugman asked.  As an example of technology, Krugman noted that the educational level of schoolteachers and corporate CEOs are approximately the same yet there is a wide chasm between the compensation of those in these two professions.  If Krugman were my brother-in-law at a Thanksgiving dinner, I’d have argued with him on this one.  “Hey, Paul, whaddayatawkin?!” I would have said, “CEOs are managing way more employees and capital than any teacher!”  Paul would have agreed with me, of course, and apologized for the error of his ways and I would have passed him the cranberry sauce.

 A 2013 study by Faleye, et. al., published in the Journal of Banking and Finance, used a systematic analysis of a salary and pay database to calculate the ratio of CEO pay to the average pay of an employee in the ranks of the company.  They identified and ranked a number of factors to explain the Pay Ratio, as I’ll call it. They found that three factors, ranked in effect, were most important, and by a wide margin:
1) size of the firm, or market cap;
2) tenure of the CEO;
3) return on assets, or profitability of the firm in a given year (Table 3).
Of those three factors, the first two factors, size and longevity, influenced the Pay Ratio far more – three times – than the third factor, the return on assets.

Let’s look at the first factor: the size of the firm.  We’ll use the stock market capitalization (CAP) as an indicator of size.  In the post war period from 1957 to 1980, 23 years, the CAP in the U.S. increased by 2.5 times.  In the subsequent 35 years since 1980, that CAP shot upwards over 13 times, even after two severe market downturns!!

So, CEOs are being paid to be responsible for the deployment of a lot of capital.  Remember, the return on assets (#3 factor) was much less important, so CEOs are being paid even if they don’t do particularly well with that capital in a given year.  Factor #2 was longevity so we can guess that CEOs who do perform well stay in the post.  Those who don’t get the proverbial boot.

Let’s turn to “Fee for service” financial advisors for a comparison.  Advisors typically charge 1 – 2% to manage money for their clients.  Naturally, an advisor – or CEO – who manages a combined $100 million will make more than one who manages $10 million.  The workers at each firm may earn approximately the same but the CEO of the larger firm should make more money and greatly increase the Pay Ratio.

What else can skew the ratio upward?  Using a mean, or average, rather than the median, the halfway number in a data set. The authors of this study found that average CEO pay was almost twice the median CEO pay, indicating that a relatively small number of very well paid CEOs skewed the average upward.  Krugman and other economists (Robert Reich, for example) touting inequality in the popular press use average, not median, CEO pay simply because the average shows a higher ratio than the median. “Whaddayadoin?!” I’d have to challenge Paul at the dinner table.   “In this case, an average gives a distorted view of the data,” I would protest.  Paul might smirk knowingly and grab the last helping of mashed potatoes while I was protesting his dirty, no good argumentative trick.

This study included 447 firms whose total revenues averaged almost $2 billion.  Apple had $600B in revenue last year so the study included both mega firms and large firms.  They found that the median Pay Ratio was 52, not 331 as the AFL-CIO claims, or 150 times, as Krugman claimed in this 1996 article.  Why are there so many different CEO ratios?  The mega companies like Apple, GE and Microsoft will naturally have the highest CEO ratios.  Organizations like the AFL-CIO who want to promote the idea of inequality might use only the pay data from the SP100, the top companies in the world.  In a popular magazine article, the writer doesn’t have to share the characteristics of the data set as one would do in an academic paper so it is relatively easy to convince readers of a particular point of view by careful selection of the data.

As companies have grown in size over the past three decades, the number of named executive officers (NEOs) in each of these large companies have grown.  As companies get bigger, the duties of these NEOs begins to approach that of the CEOs of yesteryear. To compare apples to apples, then, we would do better to compare the salaries of today’s NEOs with the CEOs of 1970. The 2013 study found that the NEO ratio was 23 times the average worker pay, much less than the Pay Ratio of 35 in 1970.  If we average the Pay Ratio (CEO) of 52 in this study and the NEO ratio of 23, we get an average of 37, just about the same as in 1970.

Regardless of the data, most of us are either convinced or not convinced that the Pay Ratio has increased dramatically in the past fifty years.  Our convictions are similar to our tastes – white meat or dark – in turkey.  We can only agree to disagree and know deep down in our hearts that we are, of course, right.

Free Trade

Leave a comment

March 20, 2016

This week’s blog will be about free trade.  Donald Trump first made it one of two signature Presidential campaign issues, then Bernie Sanders joined the chorus and now Hillary Clinton has made it part of her campaign speech. Have trade agreements with other countries put Americans at a disadvantage?

Most economists will not even entertain the idea.  The benefits of free trade are ultimately based on the benefits of specialization, the idea that everyone benefits when the most efficient producers supply a good or service.  Each producer achieves a comparative advantage (CA) in that specialization.   First formalized by economist David Ricardo in the 19th century, CA has long been a bedrock of micro-economic theory and introductory economics textbooks.

Greg Mankiw’s Prinicples of Economics cites the example of a rancher and farmer, who both benefit when they specialize.  The rancher concentrates on raising beef, the farmer raises potatoes and they produce more beef and potatoes at a lower cost than if the rancher and farmer did both. (Chapter 3)

A key concept to understanding CA is another bedrock economic principle:  opportunity cost, or what someone has to give up (the cost) to get some good or service (opportunity).  Each person, each country wants to minimize the cost to take advantage of the opportunity.

The same principle can be extended to international trade.  If a Mexican company can produce a good at a more efficient cost than an American company, then Americans will benefit if they buy the good from Mexico and sell something to Mexico which an American company can produce at a cheaper cost.  The ill effects in a particular part of the country are balanced by the good effects in another part of the country or economy, and lower prices benefit all Americans.

When countries impose tariffs on imports, those goods become more expensive for consumers. Economists talk about the “deadweight loss” from tariffs. Here is a graph of the negative effects of tariffs and more discussion on the topic.

The matter would seem settled then, as economist Paul Krugman noted in a 1987 paper : “the underlying commonality among conventional trade models is such that until a few years ago international trade theory was one of the most unified fields in economics.”

As early as the 1960s, economists questioned some aspects of conventional trade models, leading to the development of new models. Krugman notes, “The new view of international trade holds that trade is to an important degree driven by economies of scale rather than comparative advantage, and that international markets are typically imperfectly competitive.” [my emphasis]

Economies of scale. What’s that? This idea, also called increasing return, is when a producer gets a greater growth in outputs than the growth in inputs.  Increasing returns become a force separate from comparative advantage that leads to a “geographical concentration of production of each good,” or regional oligopolies.  We see this phenomenon in southeast Asia, Indonesia and Australia, where a complex web of materials and components production dominates the global electronics market.

“The view that free trade is the best of all possible policies is part of the general case for laissez-faire in a market economy, and rests on the proposition that markets are efficient. If increasing returns and imperfect competition are necessary parts of the explanation of international trade, however, we are living in a second-best world where government intervention can in principle improve on market outcomes.” [my emphasis]  The new idea in trade models is that strategic trade policy by a government “can tilt the terms of oligopolistic competition to shift excess returns from foreign to domestic firms.”  On the campaign stump, Trump makes the same case, although a bit less elegantly; that the U.S. government should make trade deals that shift the benefits of trade back to American workers and producers.  Is Trump channeling Paul Krugman?

Not quite.  Krugman notes three sometimes vociferous criticisms of government intervention. 1) The difficulty in measuring, understanding and modeling imperfect markets makes it impossible to formulate just the right policy.  2) If the government is going to intervene, companies will devote some resources to compete for favors from government, a process called “rent-seeking.” 3) Markets will make adjustments to offset intervention.  Other governments will initiate policies to counter the effects of a government’s intervention.

Krugman concludes “This is not the old argument that free trade is optimal because markets are efficient. Instead, it is a sadder but wiser argument for free trade as a rule of thumb in a world whose politics are as imperfect as its markets.”  This is the argument that Adam Smith made for laissez-faire capitalism, finding it undesireable but better than the alternatives.  Smith spent considerable effort in his book The Wealth of Nations to recount the degree of political corruption that distorted economies and society, that poisoned the human character.

That Krugman disregards those cautions when he favors government intervention within domestic markets confirms the fact that economists are human.

Economist Ian Fletcher presents far more arguments against free trade than Krugman. I would add an additional consideration.  When economists compute the costs of free trade policies, they use a model which does not include the economic benefits provided to workers displaced by free trade policies.  The costs are presumed to be offset by higher taxes from those areas of the country which benefit from free trade.  Admittably, these costs and additional tax revenues attributable to free trade policies are difficult to measure.  However, I do think that the effort should be made.  I suspect that the benefits paid to dislocated workers and the total negative effect, the multiplier, of the lost economic activity have not been fully accounted for and that free trade is much more costly than conventional models portray.

Even if we can measure and agree on the facts, we can not agree on what those facts mean.  Whatever the facts, we prefer our familiar and favorite idea.  They not only reassure us but are also well integrated into our values, and our philosophical sense of life.